


KB 



A LIGHT OiN THE HISTORIANS 



THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 



LONDON : l'lUNTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFOKD STREET 
AND CHARING CROSS. 



A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS 



AND ON 



THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 



WITH AN ACCOUNT OF BUKGH (NOW PETEEBOEOUGH) 

IN THE TIME OF THE HISTOEY WHICH IS 

CALLED THE INGULFUS. 



BY 



HENRY SCALE ENGLISH. 



LONDON: 
JOHN RUSSELL SMITH, 36, SOHO SQUARE. 

1868. 



3d wv 



it n 



J*£ 



¥* 



PEEFACE. 



This Production has been written as a part of a larger Work ; 
why it comes out in its present shape and at the present time 
will be seen in what I shall have occasion to say. 

In the year 1830 a Volume appeared without the author's 
name under the title of Ancient history, english and french, 
exemplified in a regular dissection of the saxon Chronicle ; 
preceded by a Review of Wharton s Utrum Elfricus Gram- 
maticusf Malmesburys Life of /St. Wulstan, and Hugo 
Candidus Peterborough History. 

That Book does the Writer very little credit. I am sure 
he owes humble apologies to any one who honoured it with a 
perusal, for it was badly arranged, full of mistakes, and the 
meaning sometimes so awkwardly expressed that the argu- 
ments (such as they were) were not properly understood. 
The Author of that book, who has since had more than 
sufficient time for reflection, has now written these, the 



PREFACE. 



subjects are often the same, but he has avoided a great number 
of the mistakes which disgraced the book of 1830. 

To publish again after a signal failure requires no doubt a 
shadow, at least, of an excuse ; — The preface to these Volumes 
shall be short, though a few words are not likely to excuse 
past mistakes and justify another attempt. 

The author's former offence is an old story, and the offender 
has now endeavoured to do better ; His comfort is a belief 
that those who may have seen what he wrote before have 
forgotten all about it, and his hope that his name may be 
remembered with this book, if at all, rather than with that. 

To speak in my proper person the reason why I have 
ventured to write again (aud nearly forty years later) on 
subjects which if not carefully treated are not attractive, is this : 

Whilst I was compiling the Book of 1830 I learned certain 
particulars of the history and historians of Crowland which 
I should like to see preserved. 

I see also from time to time that endeavours to elucidate 
our history are still thought laudable ; men of talents still 
continue to make -such attempts, though laudable attempts 
will sometimes fail ; and what those who have a status in 
letters to lose have thought worthy of their labour must be 
worthy of mine : 

To tell the whole truth, I think that some of my views 
which do not agree with the views of certain writers who are 
favourites with the public may be right. 

Though my ordinary pursuits for many years past have 



PREFACE. 9 

run in a different direction, I hope to show that I have learned 
more of the matters mentioned in my Book of 1830 than I 
knew then, and more indeed than has been revealed to certain 
authors by profession, who have studied and were competent 
to study them, if they have told us all they know. 

In this work I have proposed to take in hand not only 
the parts of the history which are attributed to Ingulfus and 
to Peter of Blois but (and more especially) the part which has 
teen attributed to the Abbot Egelric ; and as I have found that 
part almost inseparably connected with the history of Burgh 
I have been induced to make a part of the history of Burgh 
a part of this Work. 

I should wish if life and health permit to add something 
more hereafter to what is generally known of that other and 
second subject — the greater Monastery of Burgh; — more 
of its Historians and its more magnificent Abbots than the 
present work contains. 

These are local matters but they involve in some measure 
the history of this kingdom during a period which like Crow- 
land Abbey, wants Light. 

I may possibly live to publish another Volume also, (my 
ambition is excessive, I make no secret of that) — under the title 
of The Home of the Mercian King Wulfhere. 

All these aspirations have grown out of that exhibition of 
the Abbot Elfric which I undertook so many years ago. It 
was an attempt which ought to succeed, — a work which ought 
to be done, and which remains to be done. 



10 PREFACE. 

A word here as to the Archbishops Lanfranc and his two 
next Successors, of whose Injustice I have had much to say. 

Lanfranc had a principle, — he was one of the most ambitious 
of men and thoroughly dishonest ; Anselm — less insolent, had 
two prominent vices, bigotry and pride ; and Badulfus was an 
unmistakeable profligate. During the reigns of these three 
normans Lanfranc's iniquities were established. 

I do not suppose that all their Successors down to Henry 
the Eighth's time were inclined to do as those three did. It 
is probable that most of them knew very little of the history 
of their Church, and not at all surprising if those who knew 
more thought it better not to proclaim what they knew, but 
to ignore the past and conform. Indeed their ministers would 
never permit them to disclose the title by which they held 
their possessions. 

At last king Henry, superseding the popes and, in some 
measure, the archbishops, reconstructed the english Church ; 
and in 1541 when he made John Chambers (the last Abbot 
of Burgh) an ordinary Bishop, there was an end of the rights 
of Elfric's successors under Agathos Charter, 

But not till then ; for the surrender made of that Charter 
by the Abbot Martin of Bee in December 1145 was fraudulent, 
and conveyed nothing. We hold that the Abbot Chambers 
did right, and that the surrender to the king was a wise and 
a lawful Act. 

Moorgate Street London. 
July 1868. 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

' t AGE 

Introductory Chapter. — Opinions collected by Mr, Riley on 
the Questions, Who wrote the Work called the Ingulfus ? 
and, Is it authentic? . . . . , .- .17 



CHAPTER II. 
Remarks on the preceding Extracts from Mr. Riley's Preface 22 

CHAPTER III. 
The Sempect^ 27 

CHAPTER IV. 
The* origin of the Abbey of Crowland 29 



CHAPTER V. 

The true date of the Foundation of the Abbey, and a further 

account of the Sempect^s . , 32 



CHAPTER VI. 

Spurious Table of Abbots subsequent to King Edgar's time. 

—Who was the first Abbot? . . . • . . .36 



12 CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

CHAPTER VII. 

The Abbot Egelric. — Copies of Ingulfus not mentioned by Mr. 

Kiley 39 



CHAPTER VIII. 

Division of the History. — The Abbot Kenulfus (in the History 

called turketulus) 46 

CHAPTEK IX. 
The Abbot Egelric— His early Life 52 

CHAPTER X. 

Amended Table of the Abbots. — Some of the Historians of 
the Church of Burgh. — King Richard the First a Prince 
and a Penitent 57 

CHAPTER XI. 
History written by Egelric made part of the Ingulfus . 63 



CHAPTER XII. 

Extracts from History which is said to have been written by 
Egelric. — Peykirk ....... 



CHAPTER XIII. 

Further Extracts from the History which in the Ingulfus 

is attributed to Egelric 70 



CHAPTER XIV. 
Remarks on History attributed to Egelric . . . .75 

CHAPTER XV. 

Further Remarks respecting Egelric and Wulfgatus , . 77 



CONTENTS. 13 

PAGE 

CHAPTER XVI. 
The Abbot Elfwinus. — Further Notice of'Wulfgatus . . 82 



CHAPTER XVII. 

wulfgatus and peykirk continued. — original endowment of 

Burgh. — Agatho's Charter 88 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

The Abbots Brithmer (another name for Elfwinus) and Egel- 

ric as Bishops of Durham 93 



CHAPTER XIX. 
Egelric as a Bishop of Durham continued. — Elrich Road . 99 

CHAPTER XX. 

Where did Egelric write? — The Abbot De Caux of Bdrgh, 

and the Monk Pytchley. — Pytchley's Epitaph . . . 104 

CHAPTER XXI. 

The Abbot Osketulus (a phantom) and other Abbots of Crow- 
land. — The Abbot Oschitellus and other Abbots of Ely 
who were Bishops of Worcester. — The Historian Thomas 
of Ely 112 

CHAPTER XXII. 
Ingulfus and his Autobiography .118 

CHAPTER XXIII. 

Ingulfus's defects. — Why the Abbot Wulfketulus was de- 
posed. — Earl Waltheof and the Countess Judith (his 
Wife). — Waltheof's death and his Burial at Crowland. 
— Mention by Malmesbury and by John of Tyne mouth of 
the Cause of Waltheof's death 124 



14 CONTENTS. 

FAGS 

CHAPTER XXIV. 

The real Cause of the Vacancy at Chowland, and the ac- 
cession of Ingulfus (collected from De Caux). — State of 
Crowland when Ingulfus came 131 

CHAPTER XXV. 

Certain Crowland Charters were genuine. — Conflicts of Here- 
ward AGAINST THE EARL OF ANJOU (TAILLEBOIS), AND THE 

Abbot Toroldus. — Toroldus, the King's Nephew. — Taille- 
bois' dislike of the Monks of Spalding . . . .134 

CHAPTER XXVI. 

Ingulfus needs the help of Wulfketulus, and his punish- 
ment IS RELAXED. — INGULFUS GOES TO GLASTONBURY IN STATE ; 

Brings the Prisoner to Burgh, and leaves him there, 
(to come to Crowland when he may be wanted). — His visits 

AFTERWARDS TO CROWLAND. HlS DEATH AND BURIAL . . 139 

CHAPTER XXVII. 

Ingulfus desires in 1076 to reinstate the Monks of Spalding 
(the Monks expelled by Taillebois in 1074). — Taillebois is 
indignant, and makes the King angry with Ingulfus. — 
Crowland Charters which were genuine, and a List of 
. others which were not. — charters sometimes manufac- 
TURED at Crowland 143 

CHAPTER XXVIII. 

Mistakes as to the time when, and the reasons for which 
the false Charters were written. — Another view of the 
origin of those Charters, the Authors, and their Agent. 
— When they were invented, and why. — The Doomsday 
Book 149 

CHAPTER XXIX. 

The King is dead, and Rufus is King. — Taillebois again un- 
friendly to Ingulfus, and he appeals to Lanfranc. — Lan- 
franc dies. — The Abbey is burnt, and Taillebois again 
requires Ingulfus to produce his Deeds .... 155 



CONTENTS. 15 



CHAPTER XXX. 

a conjecture respecting the flre. — hereward and toroldus. 
— Account of Egelric resumed. — Did not the Abbots of 
Burgh always appoint the Abbots of Crowland, — and by 
some prescriptive rlght ? — the historian hugo of burgh 159 

CHAPTER XXXI. 
Account of Egelric continued 164 

CHAPTER XXXII. 

Machinations of Lanfranc to make the Archbishoprick of Can- 
terbury supreme 169 

CHAPTER XXXIII. 

Ingulfus ; and the parts in the Continuation which belong to 
him. — Account of his death. — Remarks on Mr. Riley's ac- 
count OF THE MARSHAM COPY, AND SOME PARTICULARS OF 

other Copies not so well known 172 

CHAPTER XXXIV. 

Extracts from Copies of the Ingulfus and from passages in 
Gunton's and Patrick's History of Burgh connected there- 
with EXPLANATORY OF THE HISTORIES OF CROWLAND AND 

Burgh 176 

CHAPTER XXXV, ' 

Further Extracts from Gunton's Copies of the Ingulfus, and 
further Remarks thereon. — Torhedus and Tissa. — Elfric, 
Pytchley, and other matters chiefly pertinent to Burgh 185 

CHAPTER XXXVI. 

Conjectures as to the origin of the Combustion of Crowland, 
and remarks on the account of it in the ingulfus. — the 
Continuation attributed to Peter of Blois.— The Abbot 

JOFFREDUS AND Dr. GlSLEBERTUS, AND THE PROFESSORS (>DO, 

Terricus, and William. — Origin of the University at 
Cambridge. — Archbishop Anselm and the Abbot Ernulfus 
of Burgh. — The Abbot Longchamp and Peter of Blois . 194 



16 CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

CHAPTER XXXVII. 

A WORD ON THE PRIEST BeDE (THE HISTORIAN), AND ON MALMES- 

bury. — Effects of the Eloquence of Dr. Gislebertus and 
the three other professors. — effects of the preaching 
of the Abbot Joffredus. — Joffredus sends out other Eng- 
lish and Norman Monks 202 

CHAPTER XXXVIII. 

Cambridge in the early Norman Times. — Epitaph on Gisle- 
bertus 209 

CHAPTER XXXIX. 

Gislebertus the Continuator of the History attributed to 
Peter of Blois. — The Marsham Copy of the Ingulfus a 
work of the time of the abbot longchamp . . .213 

CHAPTER XL. 

What the non-military Normans were ; and some particulars 
of the early llfe and ob 1 the end of wllliam of malmesbury 220 

CHAPTER XLL 
The Tongue spoken in Normandy in 1066 228 



A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS 



THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 



CHAPTER I. 

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 

The opinions of some of our learned Antiquaries have been 
unsettled as to the Credit which is due to certain parts of the 
Crowland History ; some have even held that it is altogether 
fabulous. I have endeavoured to understand, and, to some 
extent, I do understand it ; and now propose to modify certain 
objections thereto. I hope to show who the Historians of 
Crowland really were, and in various particulars, its real 
History. I may begin by stating, in the words of a Writer of 
the present day, the unsettled opinions to which I refer; 
His Statements shall be my Text, and these Volumes my 
Sermon, a Discourse which is the Result of the Consideration 
to which they seemed to invite. 



The substance of Extracts from the Preface to Mr. Riley s 
Translation of Ingulf us (Bonn's Historical Library, 1854). 



"Ingulfus's History of the Abbey of Croyland was first 
published in Sir Henry Savile's Scriptores post Bedam, 
London, 1596, and reprinted at Frankfort in 1601. In these 

c 



IS A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

Editions it was printed in a mutilated form, terminating with 
Ingulfus's return from his visit to the Court in 1085 ; in 
common with the other Chronicles in the same Volume it 
is disfigured by numerous typographical Errors. It was 
first printed entire in Fulman's Vol. of Gales's Berum Angli- 
carum Scriptores, Oxford, 1684. 

"In the same Volume was also published the Continuation 
by Peter of Blois, professed to have been written as a Continu- 
ation of Ingulfus's History at the request of Abbot Henry de 
Longchamp : it notices very few facts prior to 1100 (1st 
Henry 1st). 

" The Marsham and Cottonian Manuscripts of Ingulfus in 
which Fulman found this Continuation, were unfortunately 
in a mutilated state, and terminate abruptly in the year 1117 
(temp. Henry 1st). It is not improbable, however, that we 
have a very considerable portion in what has been preserved. 
" It is a singular circumstance that, with the exception of a 
Transcript of the 16th Century, no ancient Manuscript of In- 
gulfus's Chronicle is known to exist. 

" After the dissolution of Monasteries a Manuscript which 
had the reputation of being an autograph of Ingulfus re- 
mained for many years iu the Church of Croyland where it 
was preserved with great care in a Chest locked with three 
Keys : Selden endeavoured in vain to gain access to it, and 
when Fulman made Inquiries (probably about 1680) it could 
no longer be found. 

" Two ancient copies however are known to have formerly 
existed ; one in the possession of Sir John Marsham, which 
was the basis of Fulman's Edition ; and another, from which 
Selden published the Laws of the Conqueror, was in the Cot- 
tonian Library, but was burnt in the fire of 1731. Marsham' s 
copy has long since disappeared. In a letter preserved in the 
Bodleian Dr. Gibson, Bishop of London, accuses Obadiah 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 19 

Walker the Eoman Catholic Master of University College 
Oxford, of having purloined it. 

"For many years after the publication of Ingulf us there 
seems to have been no suspicion that any portion of the 
Work, or the Charters contained in it, were other them genuine. 
Spelman, Dugdale, Selden, and Stillingfleet rely upon the 
authority of the work. From Henry Wharton's time, who 
detected certain anachronisms in the attestations of earlier 
Saxon Charters, doubts have been very generally entertained 
as to the genuineness of the documents ; and by some, as to 
that of the History itself. 

" Hickes continued Wharton's Inquiries at considerable 
length, and satisfactorily proved that the Charters are either 
of norman origin, or of still later times. Sir Francis Palgrave 
after an elaborate Examination of the Work has come to a 
conclusion that the Charters are forgeries of a more recent 
date than the time of Ingulf us. 

" The questions then remain to be solved ; At what period 
were these documents forged ? by whom ? and for what purpose? 

" Hickes says he is almost compelled to believe that 
Ingulf us was the Forger : or else, that the Convent palmed off 
the History upon the World under the authority of his name. 
Hickes also says, ' I have given a portion of Ethelbald's Charter 
which I have so often had occasion to condemn ; In the 
original it appears resplendent with gold, the manufacture 
perhaps of Ingulfus himself.' 

" This Charter, by means of which ' that knave cajoled 
King William^ is sufficiently proved to have been fictitious. 
Sir Francis Palgrave expresses strong doubts whether the 
Chronicle itself (including the Charters) is of much older date 
than the Vdth or first half of the 14dh Century." 

Mr. Riley adduces various facts in support of his own 
notion that the Charters were fabricated to serve the pur- 

c 2 



20 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

poses of the Prior Richard Upton, Prior of Crowland in 
Henry the Fifth's time ; and then continues thus : — 

" It was upon this occasion, probably, that the Manuscript 
long preserved at Croyland as the autograph of Ingulfus, 
was first compiled. Finding amongst their Archives a 
Chronicle of the Convent from the earliest times (said to 
have been composed by the Sempects by order of Abbot 
Turketul), the Monks made it the vehicle of their fictitious 
Charters, added to it the Histories which had been written 
by Egelric and Ingulfus, had the whole copied afresh ; and 
deposited the manuscript in the Sacristy as corroborative 
proof of their title to the lands. 

" It was for this reason, perhaps, that so few copies of the 
Manuscript were allowed to circulate, as the forgers must 
have been conscious of the effects of scrutiny. 

" Fictitious as most, if not all of the Saxon Charters are, and 
fabulous as much of the History is likely to be, it is still 
difficult to subscribe unreservedly to Sir F. Palgrave's 
opinion that the History of Ingulfus must he considered to he 
little hetter than an historical Novel, a mere monkish Invention ; 
though at the same time it cannot be denied that the work is 
full of Interpolations." 

Mr. Riley then mentions certain, and, as he reckoned, the 
more prominent interpolations which have been detected in 
the portions of it ascribed to Egelric and to Ingulfus. 

"The passage respecting the Education of Ingulftis at 
Oxford " (says Palgrave) " long since raised the suspicion of 
Gibbon [History, B. IX.] ; and it still remains to he proved 
that Aristotle formed part of the course of Education at Oxford, 
at a time when his Works were studied in no part of Christen- 
dom. It is not improbable that this is an interpolation by 
some favourer of the pretensions of Oxford in the 13th or 14th 
Century. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 21 

" A wish to surpass the alleged antiquity of Cambridge as 
supported by the narrative of Peter of Blois may have 
prompted the insertion of this testimony in favour of Oxford." 

Sir F. Pdlgrave has also suggested that Ingulfus's Journey 
to Jerusalem must have taken place between 1053 and 1059. 
Mr. Riley agrees to this, and accounts for the error. He 
assigns 1057 as the true date, and cannot agree with Mr. 
Wright in his Work on the Anglo-Norman Writers that it 
was in 1064. 

And, whilst Mr. Riley compliments Mr. Wright on that 
Work, he observes as follows : — 

"Mr. Wright thinks that Ingulfus's account of the 
exiguitas (which he translates mean estate) of his parents 
contradicts what he says of his father living at Court. He 
thinks, also, that the History appears too vainglorious to have 
been written by Ingulfus himself." 

But he (Mr. Riley) thinks otherwise. " The self-compla- 
cency which we find displayed by the Abbot throughout his 
story, and the patronizing air with which he explains the 
more barbarous usages of the persecuted Saxons, combined 
with the frivolous display of Gallic learning, strongly bespeak 
the Anglo-Norman prelate. 

"Mr. Wright is also of opinion that the Continuation 
ascribed to Peter of Blois is spurious : but the reasons adduced 
by him hardly seem to warrant so decided a conclusion. It is 
not probable " (he says) " that the monks of Croyland should 
have applied to a stranger to write the History of their House, and 
we can trace no connection between them and Peter of Blois." 

In this particular also Mr. Eiley does not agree with Mr. 
Wright. " Vitalis (he says), almost a stranger, and half a 
foreigner, was engaged by the Monks of Croyland to write 
the Epitaph of Earl Waltheof for the moment, almost the 
National Hero and Saint of the English? 



22 A LIGHT OX THE HISTORIANS, AND 



CHAPTER II. 

REMARKS ON THE PRECEDING EXTRACTS FROM MR. 
RILEY'S PREFACE. 

Besides the Continuations published in the Oxford Edition 
there are other matters wanting in the two Editions of the 
Ingulf us which Savile printed, but his Editions contain an 
unconnected Fragment, sl sheet which the Oxford Edition con- 
tains also, and is a material piece in this History of Crowland. 

Mr. Riley observes that the Continuation of the History is, 
also, in a mutilated state, but that we probably have (and he 
gives a reason for what he says,) a very considerable portion of 
the original Work in what has been preserved. — But let us 
leave the Continuation for the present. 

The Evidence which has been, or might be, produced, is no 
doubt sufficient to prove that the earlier portion of the 
History (the parts attributed to Ingulfus and to his Prede- 
cessors) contains adulterations which were not made till 
after the time of Ingulfus : and the question it is the object 
of this Volume to solve is, whether the Compilation which 
Ingulfus is understood to have made, and the Continuation 
he wrote, and which, together, are called the Ingulfus, ever 
were, what they ought to have been, parts of a faithful History of 
his Abbey anterior to, and during the period in which he wrote ? 

Ingulfus did compile a History of Crowland and continue 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 23 

it ; and I expect to make it clear that it was so compiled and 
continued under the orders of the Archbishop Lanfranc. Let 
us, for the present, suppose this, and that Ingulfus worked 
with an unworthy object, (that is to say) to darken the 
History of the English Church and particularly the History 
of a Neighbouring Monastery. 

He certainly wrote a part of the History in Lanfranc s time, 
and, if he were not employed to write, and the History were 
a voluntary work, we shall see that what he wrote was 
submitted to Lanfranc or his Ministers, and that alterations 
were made therein to suit the Views of the Church of Can- 
terbury. 

Lanfranc himself was probably incompetent even to revise 
such a History, but not only he, but Anselm and Badulfus 
also (they all lived in the time of Ingulfus), had servants 
who were competent and quite willing to falsify any History, 
or to alter any Manuscripts to suit their Masters' Views. But, 
as far as Ingulfus was concerned, we ought rather to connect 
the falsehoods in the History with Lanfranc than with either 
of the other two. 

Ingulfus in the part of it which he wrote, speaks of Lan- 
franc as his father, benefactor, and sure friend. It does not 
seem that without his countenance Ingulfus would have had 
so much of the favour of the Court. We see that Lanfranc 
sustained him in the possession of Lands to which his Abbey 
had little or no right : and when (on the deposition and 
imprisonment of the Abbot Wulfketulus) the Abbey was to be 
disposed of though there must have been competitors it was 
given to Ingulfus ; and this was on Lanfranc s suggestion, or 
at his request, though it is not so said. It would not have 
been given without Lanfranc's full consent, and, no doubt, 
the Abbot considered himself under great obligations to the 
then Head of the Church in this Kingdom. 



24 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

That Lanfranc's direct Influence does not appear in the 
History is true ; but it is only not seen because it would have 
been impolitic to show it. • 

Ingulfus was competent and qualified to write History, and 
he had this other advantage, both his name and his face were 
known to the King (for we must suppose that when the King- 
bestowed this Gift he had not forgotten his former services) ; 
but, in any case, Ingulfus had principally- to thank Lanfrane. 

At the time of this appointment Lanfrane was still con- 
tending for superiority (under the newly devised Title of 
Primate of all England and Metropolitan) with Thomas the 
Archbishop of York, who was really his equal in Kank. 
Lanfrane claimed also, as parts of the Province of Canterbury, 
the Bishopricks of Worcester, Chester and Lincoln, which, till 
he came, were always reckoned to belong to the Archbishop 
of York, but now he sought to limit that Archbishop's 
province to the Bishopricks north of the Humber. 

We find that the King in these Disputes listened only to 
Lanfrane; and forgeries and false evidence of every kind 
were resorted to, to induce him to sanction what Lanfrane 
desired. 

As long as the name of JElfric was preserved as an 
Abbot of Burgh, and the knowledge, that by the established 
Custom of our Church the Abbots of Burgh were the Arch- 
bishops of -York these claims of Lanfrane, insolent as well 
as unjust, seemed unattainable. 

Now we find throughout all the existing Copies of the 
Ingulfus that the name of Elfric as an Abbot of Burgh, is 
suppressed. Did Ingulfus write the passages in the History 
in which it ought to appear and does not ? The natural and 
the true answer is, He did. And the reason is, He wrote under 
constraint. 

The Falsehoods in the Historv as we have it were not, 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 25 

however, all the Inventions of this Historian, Ingulfus ; and 
I do think that to some extent his sins were sins of omission 
only ; and that as to Elfric, all he was really willing to do to 
serve Lanfrane, was to exclude his name from the Crowland 
History. 

For some years Elfric and Ingulfus were Cotemporaries ; 
Ingulfus was abroad during the latter part of Elfric's life- 
time and at the time of his death, but they both lived in the 
reigns of the three Danish Kings, and during the first seven 
years of King Edward ; and Elfric's Abbey was but seven 
miles from Crowland. We ought therefore to have had in the 
History many particulars respecting Elfric which we have 
not ; and that we have them not is easily accounted for. 

Ingulfus hated Elfric's Abbey, and, it may be, Elfric him- 
self; — and Ingulfus held his own Abbey at the Will of 
Lanfrane. 

But the History as Ingulfus first wrote it did contain the 
name of Elfric as an Abbot of Burgh, or at least we have 
more reason to think it did, than that it did not. 

We see mention therein of an Abbot of Burgh without a 
name whose name must have been his; and the question 
again and again presents itself, Bid Ingulfus? could he, 
possibly, write this History and exclude it ? 

And again and again, this answer to the question, — He did 
make mention therein of Elfric as the Abbot of Burgh. If 
not, his pen was never his own, and the name was excluded 
from the first by order of Lanfrane (which it may be too 
much to assume). In some passages the name of this Abbot 
of Burgh seems to be got rid of by a paraphrase. Possibly 
Ingulfus was perplexed, possibly disgusted, with his task. 

The Editor of the Oxford Edition speaking of the Manu- 
script which Savile published, says that Selden spent some- 
thing considerable in his inquiries after, and endeavours to 



26 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

get a sight of the supposed Autograph at Crowlaml, a Manu- 
script which Sir Henry Spelman had seen and pronounced 
very ancient, veterrimum, — but, when Selden inquired, — non 
comparet ; and that neither Spelman nor Selden had added 
anything to what Savile published except the laws of King 
Edward, which laws Selden had from the Writings of the 
Canterbury monk, Edmer. 

As to the two Manuscripts of w r hich the Oxford Editor 
made use, he (the Editor) says the principal was Mr. John 
Marshams copy (a son of Sir John's), a better and more 
entire copy than Savile's, and that he had made use also of 
one leaf, mischievously cut out, communicated by Mr. 
Thomas Gale from a Codex in Cotton's Library ; and that, 
except as to that leaf, he was indebted to Marshams Copy 
alone for the Continuation of the History after Ingulfus, 
which was written by Peter of Blois. 

It seems then to be agreed that the History of Crowland 
continued, as we have it in the Oxford Edition, has been 
mutilated and altered, and needs correction; and if so, its 
imperfections ought to be pointed out. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 27 



CHAPTER III. 

THE SEMPECT^E. 

We are told in the Book which we are to call the Ingulf us 
that some of the earlier particulars in the History are founded 
on the Relations of certain old Monks, who, from their own 
personal knowledge, spoke the Truth ; and that their Commu- 
nications, and other particulars taken from Records which had 
been preserved, were all put into the form of a History by one 
Aio ; and that the Narration was afterwards continued by the 
Abbots Turhetulus, Egelric the younger, and Ingulf us himself. 

These are the words in the Ingulfus : — 

" 1089. Thus far I, Ingulfus, Abbot of Crowland, have for 
the Information of future ages continued this History of 
Crowland, as far as I could collect it from our Archives, and 
as my Monks have related it to me. It is written from our 
foundation to the time of the destruction by the Danes, by the 
Five Sempectse ; The acts of the Abbot Turhetulus were 
written by his Cousin, the Abbot Egelric the younger, and by 
Turhetulus himself ; and I am the Relator of the events of our 
own Times." 

I suppose Ingulfus discontinued the History in 1089, and 
finished for the time with a few words like the last, but 
resumed it some years afterwards ; and that the parts of the 
above passage which are true begin with the words The Acts 



28 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

of the Abbot Turhetulus, but that Turhetulus was not the 
name of the Abbot, and that for Turhetulus we should read 
Kenulfus. 

This History says that before the time of the Abbot Turke- 
tulus the Monks of Crowland when they were 50 years old 
were called Sempectse.* The part which in the above- 
mentioned passage the Sempectce are said to haye written 
relates that Crowland was founded by King Ethelbald, and 
that Kenulfus, a Monk of Evesham, was the first Abbot ; but 
it will be seen that there is not a word of truth in the Stories 
which these Sempectse tell. 



From the greeJc, o-vfinaiKrrjs, a Companion (Riley). 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 29 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE ORIGIN OF THE ABBEY OF CROWLAND. 

The Ingulfus says of King Edgar that when, on his Brother 
Edwin's death, he became the Ruler of the whole Kingdom, 
he recalled St. Dunstan from Banishment ; that he made 
him, first, the Bishop of Worcester, next, of London, and soon 
afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury ; and that thereupon 
Turhetulus went to London, and congratulated his old friend, 
the newly-made Archbishop, and obtained from the King a 
Royal Charter for his own Abbey : With a Charter of King 
Edgar to Crowland the Ingulfus ought to have begun. 

It is said that the Charter was made in the Eighth year of 
Edgar's reign (it is dated in 966). This was the time when 
our Benedictine Monasteries began to rise under the Influence 
of the Reformers Dunstan, Ethelwold, and Oswald. Ethelwold 
(who, as a Bishop of Winchester, is famous in History, 
and was the Restorer of Burgh) did obtain a Charter for 
Crowland, but under that Charter he did not restore, he 
founded an Abbey at Crowland ; and we must believe that 
this Charter was a piece in existence and entire in the time 
of Ingulfus. 

The words of the Charter of King Edgar to the Abbot Tur- 
hetulus and the Abbey of Crowland, are inserted in the Crow- 
land History ; the charter, as well as what is said of Turke- 



30 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

tulus, is written in a style very like Malmesbury' s, when 
Malmesbury wrote romance (for he could write both romance 
and history) and must be very different from the words of the 
genuine Charter. This will be evident if the whole piece be 
carefully read. I may extract the substance of one passage 
therein. 

Some time after the Danes had burned and laid waste the 
Abbey it was restored by the zeal of Turketidus and the favour 
of King Edred ; and (now) King Edgar by this Charter grants 
out of his Manors of Eastrea and Caster all necessary Timber 
for the rebuilding the said Monastery, and confirms to the said 
Church the Gifts of the Manors it formerly had ; all which 
(and they are many) are mentioned in the Charter. 

It is said a little earlier in the History that Malmesbury 
Abbey was restored by the Bex magnificus Mthelstanus ; that 
King Mthelstanus died in the year 937 ;* that Godricus, Abbot 
of Crowland died also, in the same year, and that, within a 
month afterwards, two other persons, old Monks of Crowland 
followed Godricus, namely, Brother Sweinus and Brother 
Osgotus, and that there then remained only Five of the old 
Brethren, that is to say, the Brothers Clarenbaldus, Swart- 
lingus, Thurgarus, Brunus and Aio : (These five are the five 
Sempectse mentioned above.) 

Of which five the two last left Crowland, when they saw their 
patron, king Mthelstanus, and their abbot were no more and 
almost despaired of the resurrection of the Monastery, — and 
they went into other Monasteries. Brunus (the first to go) 
went to Winchester, and Aio to Malmesbury, where they resided 



* It may here be mentioned that King Ethelstan was succeeded by 
Edmund who died in 946. Edmund left two sons Edwin and Edgar who 
were both very young, and Edred their Uncle was made King. Edred died 
in 955, and Edwin succeeded and reigned three years, and Edgar suc- 
ceeded Edwin in 959. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 31 

for some years. Bat the other three (always confiding in 
God and the help of St. Guthlac) continued together. The 
History relates also, that in King Edmund's time (after Ethel- 
stan's death) the Abbey of Glastonbury was not peopled by 
Monks but by a few Clerks ; and that while the Priest 
St. Dunstan was busy in the reforming that Church King 
Edmund gave him the Abbey of Malmesbury (in addition to 
Glastonbury) from which Abbey of Malmesbury as from Glaston- 
bury Dunstan expelled the Clergy (they were Canons there, also, 
not Monks) and brought back the Monks who had been ex- 
pelled to make room for the Canons. (There could have been 
no such change at Malmesbury before King Edgar's time.) 

And it is said that after the restoration of the Monks to 
their proper places in those two Abbeys of Glastonbury and 
Malmesbury, Elfrie, a man celebrated at that time for Eccle- 
siastical discipline w r as made the Head of the Monks who were 
so replaced at Malmesbury ; and that to the Abbot Elfrie and 
his Monks there King Edgar gave this Charter ; — (A Charter 
then follows in the words of the Charter to Malmesbury Abbey, 
which is set out in Malmesbury s account of that Abbey.) After 
which Charter copied at full length the Historian of Crowland 
says, " I have here inserted the Charter of a Monastery at such 
a distance because (for one reason) our Abbot Turketulus has 
the first place amongst the subscribers thereto." 

We shall see in the next Chapter that we have nothing less 
to do than to reject altogether the Claims of Crowland Abbey 
to the remote origin which the History assigns, together with 
a whole series of Charters beginning with the Charter of King 
Ethelbald dated in 716, and to strike more than 250 years 
off the account. 



32 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 



CHAPTER V. 

THE TRUE DATE OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE ABBEY, AND A 
FURTHER ACCOUNT OF THE SEMPECT.E. 

Let us look again at the before-mentioned passages — "J, 
Ingulf us, have continued this History of Crowland," &c. 

" The acts of the Abbot TurJcetulus were written by the 
Abbot Egelrie and by TurJcetulus himself and I am the 
Relator of the events of our own Times." 

The change in the name, of one of the Writers of the acts of 
Turhetulus is not the only falsehood in this part of the 
History ; but we may begin now with that. 

We read in the account of Turhetulus that in the year 946 
he was the Chancellor of King Edred ; That, because he was 
very religious, he declined to marry either of several very 
beautiful women, daughters of Dukes and Earls, and whom 
the King would have given him in marriage, and was so ex- 
tremely devout that he refused promotion and dignities of all 
kinds, even in the Church. He objected to all worldly honours 
believing that Invitations to such Distinctions were tempta- 
tions, nets; but that, in 948 after King Edred had restored 
the ruined Monastery of Crowland, Turketulus relented 
as to honours in the Church and was made the Abbot of Crow- 
land. 

We are told also that King Ethelbald was the Founder of 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 33 

Crowland in the year 716 and had made ■ Kenulfus its first 
Abbot, and that its History had been wonderfully preserved 
until after it was so restored in 946 ; That five of the 
before-named Sempectae {Monks of the old Monastery) 
survived until the Kestoration and had related to Turhe- 
tulus the particulars of its former History : 

That in the time of the same Abbot Turketulus the Abbey 
was rebuilt from its Foundation. 



I suppose it is so said, (and not that King Edred and others 
restored an Abbey which was first built in the time of King 
Ethelbald) because there was nothing really ancient in the 
appearance of any of its parts : It was but about 100 years 
old at the coming of Ingulfus. 



" And now the Abbot Turketulus towards the end of his 
days (in the year 974,) no longer went out, but he liked 
every day to converse with the Seniors in the house about 
the customs of the old Monastery, and to hear the Stories of 
the dominus Aio who was a lawyer and better acquainted 
than the rest with the contents of the title deeds, and of 
Thurgarus, who " [only f\ " when he was young had seen with 
his own eyes the former Monastery as well as the ' new 
buildings. These men were all willing to relate what they 
knew themselves, and what they had heard from their elders 
in their younger years." 

Turketulus appointed brother Swetman who was a notary 
to take down, carefully, all the particulars which they re- 
membered of the old Monastery, and these particulars were 
to be digested and faithfully transcribed for the use of future 
times, and the rules and observances of the house also, as 
far as they could be collected. 

And, (to conform as it seems to these ancient rules,) 

D 



34 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

Turketulus now ordered that the monks of his Abbey should 
be of three classes : The duties of the juniors are described 
until they were 24 years of age ; — after 24 they were to be 
advanced and hold a medium position for 16 years ; after 40 
they were to be called Seniors until they were 50 and 
absolved from ordinary duties, and other distinctions were 
also to be made in their favour ; and, after they were 50 
every monk was to be called a Sempecta ; — he was to have 
a junior for his attendant, and enjoy certain privileges which 
the history mentions. 

Then follow rules as to obedience to the Prior in his 
honourable office, — and as to the Precentor, and the tables 
which he should set, (the chants as it seems which he should 
select for each service in the Church ;) — it is said that the 
Abbot, the Prior and all the Convent were to be humbly obe- 
dient thereto ; — and then follow the rules as to the Sacrist, 
and his duties. 

In these Constitutions each of the three classes is ex- 
horted to forbearance, forgiveness, charity and brotherly love. 
These are such exhortations as might be expected from the 
founder or from the first abbot of the house ; and from their 
language and quality I suppose these rules were written by 
the first Abbot. 

We are told that the dominus Clarenbaldus (one of the 
Sempectse) died in 974, having completed his 168th year ; and 
the next year, the dominus Swatlingus, he having completed 
his 142nd year ; and so also the dominus Brunus and the 
dominus Aio (all three within the year 975, which was the 
14th year of King Edgar ;) and that, at leDgth Thurgarus, 
the last of the five died also, he having completed his 115th 
year. 

(It seems that the year 975 was the year of the foundation of 
Crowland.) 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 35 

John de Gaux an Abbot of Burgh from 1249 to 1262, 
wrote a Chronicle which was of great use to Dr. Patrick, the 
editor and writer of a Supplement to Gunton's history of 
Peterborough ; without the assistance of that Chronicle it 
would be more difficult to understand many passages in the 
History of Crowland. 

We learn therefrom that soon after Christianity was first 
established in Mercia there was a cell at Crowland in which 
the hermit St. Guthlac took up his abode ; and the tradition 
of this cell of St. Guthlae at Crowland seems to have been the 
origin of the claim of the Monastery to a fabulous antiquity. 

It appears by De Caux's account that in the year 699 St. 
Guthlac {who was then of the age of 26) began to live a hermit's 
life in that cell : He ivas of a noble family and died after he 
had occupied the hermitage for 15 years on Wednesday in 
Easter week anno 714:. 

(As in the case of Saint Anthony Guthlac's devotions were 
disturbed as it seems by evil spirits which, in his case, came 
in the shape of Crows.) 



d 2 



36 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 



CHAPTER* VI. 

SPURIOUS TABLE OF THE ABBOTS SUBSEQUENT TO KING 
EDGAR'S TIME. — WHO WAS THE FIRST ABBOT? 

We learn from Writers of credit, the better informed Histo- 
rians of the age in which King Edgar lived, that when he 
ascended the throne there was no Christianity in the re- 
ligion of the people; but that King, moved principally by 
the intreaties and counsels of Ethelwold the before-named 
Bishop of Winchester, directed the restoration of, expended 
large sums upon, and partly endowed out of the crown 
lands a great many Monasteries. 

This History. (the Ingulf us) says that Edgar and his bishops 
restored more than forty-eight Monasteries during his reign ; 
and Brompton says no fewer than forty were then founded 
or rebuilt. Amongst those which were rebuilt in the fens we 
may reckon Ely, Thorney and Burgh, which last until 
some years after it was rebuilt was known not by its ancient 
name of Medeshamstead but as Girvum, and it is the Peter- 
borough of the present time. 

Crowland is not mentioned with the others which were 
founded in Edgars time. The makers of the Crowland 
history, not content with so youthful a being invented a 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. S7 

history which might be thought incredible but that in our 
times many of its misstatements have been believed ; They 
continue even yet to be believed ; ought such history to be 
perpetuated ? 

The truth is that about the time of the restoration of 
Medeshamstead the restless piety of Ethel wold was brought to 
bear upon and in some sort infected king Edgar ; and one 
consequence was that the Ruins of the Hermitage once 
inhabited by Guthlac were converted into the Monastery 
which was built on the ground on which it stood, and this 
house at Crowland, founded in Edgar's time, seems to have 
prospered under the management of the first abbot. 

We shall show in another chapter that the first Abbot of 
Crowland was Kenulfus ; not a Kenulfus a monk of Evesham 
in the time of King Ethelbald as the Crowland history 
states, but Kenulfus a monk of Abingdon under the before- 
named bishop Ethelwold, (who was till the end of his life the 
abbot of Abingdon.) 

It is not necessary to discuss the history previous to 
Edgar's time - for there is no truth in it. We begin with the 
foundation of the Abbey and our principal business will 
be to endeavour to rectify the misstatements therein after 
that time ; but first let us remark . upon the table of Abbots 
which is, at present, a part of the history, and according to 
which the names of the abbots (after the abbey was rebuilt) 
and the dates of their deaths are these : — 

1. Turketulus — (who, in 947, was the king Edred's chan- 
cellor)— died 3rd July 975 in the 68th year of his age and the 
21th of his monkhood. 

2. Egelric (Senior), — He was Abbot 10 years and died 
Mh August 984. 

3. Egelric (Junior, of the same family as Turketulus), — He 
died 2nd March 992. 



38 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

4. Osketulus* died 21st October 1005. 

5. Godric, died 19th January lOlf (in the second year of 
Canute. 

6. Brithmer, died 6th April 1048, (6th Edward Confessor). 

7. Wulfgatus (ex- Abbot of Peykirk), — He was Abbot 4 years 
and died 5th June 1052. 

8. Wulfketulus (an ex-Monk and Sacrist of Burgh) — King 
Edward made him the next Abbot after Wulfgatus. 



The History tells us (in words or in effect) that the abbot 
Egelric the elder died about the same time as the bishop 
Ethelwold of Winchester, and also that he and the other 
abbot Egelric were buried near each other in the Chapter- 
house ; That Brithmer was a kinsman of the abbot Osketulus 
and was the abbey Proctor in the time of the abbot, Godric ; 
and that Osketulus, before he was abbot, was the prior of the 
house under Turketulus and the two Egelrics and that, as 
prior, he succeeded the prior Amfridus. 

There are many inconsistencies and palpable falsehoods 
in this account of the Abbots. It is an instance of the varia- 
tions introduced into the text of the Ingulfus after it was 
originally written that Ingulfus has been made to say first, 
that the Abbot Godric died in 937, and afterwards, (in 1106 
as it seems,) to say that Abbot Godric (the real abbot Godric) 
made a lease of the manor of Badby for a hundred years to 
earl Leofric and that though the term had expired the 
manor was still withheld. 

It will be seen that Godric was abbot from 1005 till 1019. 

* According to the early history of Ely (book II. chap. 22) Oschitellus 
was the name of an Abbot of Ely who succeeded the Abbot Elf sinus in that 
Monastery. 

Wharton (Angl. Sac. 1, 608) says that Elf sinus the Abbot of Ely 
died in 1019, but Bentham, the later historian of Ely, says in 1016. 



ON THE HISTORY OF C ROWLAND ABBEY. 30 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE ABBOT EGELRIC. — NOTICE OF COPIES OF THE INGULFUS 
NOT MENTIONED BY MR. RILEY. 

Mr. Riley who mentions that a Manuscript was long pre- 
served at Crowland as an autograph of Ingulfus, suggests 
that much of the History which passes for the work of 
Ingulfus was not really his but history compiled when 
Richard Upton was the Prior of Crowland (in Henry the fifth's 
time.) Mr. Riley's theory is " that the monks of those days 
found a chronicle of the Abbey from the earliest times which 
purported to have been composed by the Sempectse by the 
order of the abbot Turketulus and made it the vehicle of 
the series of Charters which they then set up ; — that those 
charters were fabricated by Upton ; that Uptons work and 
the charters and the histories written by Egelrie and Ingulfus 
were then added together and the whole copied afresh and 
the Composition then treasured up as the title to their 
lands." 

He observes also that the manuscript which Savile 
published (called Cotton's Copy) ends with the visit of the 
abbot Ingulfus to the Court in 1085; and he reckons that 
the copies published at Oxford in 1684 contain not only 
the matters in Savile's books but the rest of the work of 
Ingulfus as well as the continuation by Peter of Blots ; 



40 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

that Mar sham's Copy so edited in 1684 was, like Cottons, 
in a mutilated state and that copy terminated abruptly in the 
year 1107 ; that Cottons copy was burned in the fire which 
consumed a great part of tiis Library in 1731 ; and that 
Marshall's (which it seems belonged to the Bodleian) had 
long since disappeared. 

There are objections to these views of Mr. Riley's as to the 
Compilers of the History, and as to the time and place in which 
and the purpose for which it was compiled. 

After the relations of the Sempectm, of Turketulus and 
of the Abbot Egelric (for the truth of which the language 
of Ingulfus suggests that he did not hold himself re- 
sponsible,) there follows a relation of events in the time of 
Ingulfus himself, which relation he says he wrote himself (and 
therefore, for the truth of that account he would be re- 
sponsible;) but alterations have no doubt been made in the 
portion which he wrote, and that portion also is to be read 
with distrust. 

We are told therein that he, Ingulfus, when he was in 
London inspected the Record (then lately completed) called 
the Doomsday Booh ; and that though he was not altogether 
dissatisfied with the mention therein of the possessions of the 
Abbots of Crowland he hoped by the King's favour to get 
back other Manors and Estates ; — Manors and Estates which 
belonged as he says to the Abbey nearly 330 years before. 

It might seem (according to other parts of the History) that 
he alludes in these words to the lands which were said to have 
been given to the Abbey by King Ethelbald for the charter 
imputed to Ethelbald was dated in 716, but possibly he did 
not : It was not in the year 1046 but (as I suppose) in or 
about the year 1089 that this part of the History was written. 

On the present occasion we may borrow some information 
from the Historians of the neighbouring monastery of Burgh. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 41 

Both Gunton, the earliest of the modern historians of that 
house and Dr. Patrick the learned Commentator upon 
Gunton, frequently quote our historian of Crowland, and 
accept without scruple the accounts in the Ingulfus of the 
following Charters by mercian and other kings all of them 
purporting to be endowments of Crowland. 

Ethelbald — founded the Monastery by a charter dated 
a.d. 716. 

793. A Grant by King Offa. 

806. Another by King Kenulfus. 

833. Another by Witlajf. 

851. Another by Bertwulf. 

And another by Beorred (one of the last of the kings of 
Mercia) dated in 860. 

Dr. Patrick writes to the following effect in his notes upon 
Gunton s account of the invasion of Mercia by the Danes, and 
the destruction of Burgh (then called Medeshamstead) in the 
year 870. 

" The next year after that destruction according to the 
Chronicle " (of the Abbot Be Caux) " that is to say, in 871 
Beorred king of the Mercians took all the lands of the 
church of Medeshamstead between Stamford, Huntingdon and 
Wisbech into his own hands giving those that lay more 
remote to his soldiers and stipendiaries," &c. " These are the 
very words of Ingulfus, from whom it is likely they were 
transcribed into that Chronicle." 

Now Ingulfus was a man of sense and judgment, and it is 
hard to believe that he would think of presenting in 1076, or 
afterwards at a Court of Inquiry not only king Ethelbald's 
charter as genuine but a considerable number of other charters, 
all forgeries, when one forged charter alone — a charter of King 
Beorred — might answer his purpose : He must surely have ex- 
pected that all his writings whether one or more would be laid 



42 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

before competent inquisitors and perhaps before the chancellor 
and other principal officers of the law. 

I imagine then that the charters of Ethelbald, Edred and 
the rest, the inventions of Malmesbury after 1076, would for 
the time be suppressed and that not more than one, and that a 
fabricated charter of King Beorred dated in or about the 
year 860 could he presented and passed for genuine before 
the Commissioners (for instance) for the survey in 1085 or 
1086, and that in such charter king Beorred would appear as 
the founder of Crowland. 

It is true there is but an interval of 229 years, not 330, 
between the year 860 and the year 1089 towards which 
time Ingulfus rested in his work ; but the text of the history 
is depraved in so many other particulars that I think, since 
we hear of no other grant to Crowland to which the ex- 
pression 330 years ago can be applied, another numeral 
letter C has been added, and CCCXXX written for what 
was originally written CCXXX : — The great Kegister was 
completed in 1086, and it would be so if the statement in the 
Ingulfus were written in 1089. 

Unlike EtheTbaWs and the other previous charters it seems 
that there ivas a charter of King Edgar which was not an 
invention but a real and genuine piece until after the year 
1076, but that, after 1076 (and as it seems in 1085) this 
genuine charter was represented by another document which 
Malmesbury manufactured or reconstructed and Ingulfus 
substituted for the real Charter : (I suppose this Charter was 
produced perfect and entire in 1076.) 



Gunton mentions in his history of Burgh that he had two 
copies of Ingulfus, and we see from his Extracts therefrom 
that those two copies differed in some respects from each 
other, (in the names, for instance, of certain persons in the 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 43 

history and in other particulars also) : — One of these Copies 
had a Continuation, — the other had not. 

If we listen to the Ingulfus which we now have we hear 
that the Abbot Egelric wrote a portion of the history of Crow- 
land ; I suppose he did ; and though it is not said that he 
wrote it whilst he was abbot it is implied that he did. I shall 
show that Egelric was a monk of Burgh, and it will be seen that 
he returned to Burgh in 1056 : It was there, I suppose, that 
he wrote history, but not a history of Growland though certain 
parts of it have been imported into the history of Crowland. 

Egelric wrote history and history which contained many 
particulars of Crowland, but what he wrote was rather in 
the form of a life of Bede, or of Kenulfus or Elfric ; — or a 
history of Burgh. It is not likely that he would think of 
writing the history of a Monastery which was so recently 
founded, — a Monastery which really had no history. 

Whatever the form might be of the piece which Egelric 
wrote it seems that Ingulfus heard of it ; he would procure 
a copy from Burgh without any difficulty. 

Egelric after his return to Burgh would spend much of his 
time in reading and writing. He probably wrote both history 
and biography, (not any Crowland history, eo nomine, but other 
pieces of which Ingulfus in his compilation made use.) 



A few words here as to the part of the Ingulfus which is 
attributed to the Abbot Egelric. 

What is said therein of .Egelric' 's devotion to literature is of 
iveight when we come to consider what we know of his Life. 

Nothing is more certain than that a considerable part of the 
history of Crowland is spurious ; and I think we may under- 
stand that though a part of that spurious history was written 
by Malmesbury in 1085, another part was not invented earlier 
than about forty years after Egelric's death, that is to say, 



44 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

not before the year 1115. I expect to show that the in- 
ventors of that other part were certain normans of whom I 
have to speak hereafter, and that they were or were connected 
with the normans in the monastery of Burgh. 

By some means not very difficult to comprehend portions 
of that spurious history of Crowland became portions of the 
history of Burgh. 

It was from Burgh, no doubt, that some particulars were 
imported into the Crowland history, for they are parts also 
of the Chronicles which De Caux wrote about the year 1260 : 
Amongst these particulars common to Be Caux and to the 
Ingulf us we reckon the accounts of St. Guthlac and of the 
appropriation by king Beorred of the lands of the deserted 
abbey of Medeshamstead : It seems that matters like these 
were written by Egelric; and Patrick supposes (as has been 
said) that they were transcribed and chronicled by De Caux 
from his copy of the Crotvland history. 

It may be so. The Ingulf us — the Crowland History which 
Be Caux had — was probably one of the copies which Gunton 
had, (that copy which had the Continuation from which he 
quotes) : — Neither Patrick nor Gunton makes mention of any 
writer of Crowland history continued after Ingulfuss time. 

It seems that Gunton s copies both contained, with certain 
minute differences, some if not all of the adulterations which 
Savile's copy contained (the copy known as Cottons). 

Savile's copy ends (as we have seen) with the journey of 
Ingulfus to Court in 1085, but the copy from which we have 
a quotation in Be Caux (a quotation materially different from 
a corresponding passage in Marshams copy) continued the 
History beyond the year 1089, as did also, as I suppose, Gunton s 
larger copy (the copy with a Continuation). It seems that 
formerly there were other copies of the Crowland history at 
Burgh; the manuscript which Savile edited was probably one, 



ON THE HISTORY OF OROWLAND ABBEY. 45 

but it was not the same as Guntoris shorter copy (that which 
had not a continuation), for we see by Gunton's quotations 
that his and Saviles copies do not in all respects agree. I 
shall show hereafter that Thomas Cotton, an ancestor of Sir 
Robert's and Sir Johns, had a large Share (acquired by pur- 
chase, I suppose,) and which he left in his family of the spoils 
of the library at Burgh in the Eighth Henry's Time. 

To finish this digression, — We hear nothing of Egelrie as a 
Writer except in the history compiled by Ingulfus. 



46 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 



CHAPTEK VIII. 

DIVISION OF THE HISTORY. — THE ABBOT KENULFUS 
(IN THE HISTORY CALLED TURKETULUS). 

The History of Crowland is divisible into three parts. 

The first part, the period from the Foundation of the Alley 
to the coming of Ingulf us ; The second, from his coming to the 
time of his death ; and the third, the history after his death ; 
or, in other words : First,— History which (according to the 
Ingulfus but without proof) is attributable to Kenulfus, and 
portions of history which were written by the Abbot Egelric ; 
secondly, History attributable to Ingulfus himself; and thirdly, 
the continuation attributed to Peter of Blois. 

We shall see that the principal Historians of Crowland were 
its Abbots ; and the light to be thrown upon the Abbey will 
fall principally upon them. 

The First part ; from the foundation of the Abbey to the 
coming of Ingulfus. 

To begin with the Abbot Kenulfus (the Turketulus of the 
history) ; — It will be seen, from what has been said, that the 
large space which he occupies as a writer therein ought to be 
reduced (if indeed he wrote any part of it). 

Many of the events described as particulars in the life of 



ON THE HISTORY OF GROWL AND ABBEY. 47 

Kenulfus, (whom we would cease to call Turketulus,) are 
inventions only and were invented for a dishonest purpose 
namely, to bolster up the false pretensions of the Abbey, — 
but nevertheless they contain some truth ; — we may discern 
several essential particulars of Kenulfus in certain portions of 
this first section of the History, a portion which is assignable 
(except the story of St. Peg's) to Egelric rather than to any 
other of the writers who contributed thereto. 

Amongst the particulars respecting Kenulfus which adorn 
the history of Crowland and seem to have been written by 
Egelric we may instance what is said of the kindly disposition 
of the first Abbot. 

He visited once a day the Children in the School ; — (It seems 
these Children were most of them sent into the Monastery 
to be educated often for Monks, and were generally, the sons of 
people who were well to do ;) he went to see that they were 
properly taught ; he used to take a servant with him, and 
he rewarded the deserving with figs, raisins, nuts or almonds, 
but more frequently with apples and pears. 

According to the Ingulfus which though discoloured and 
deformed is still our guide in matters in which there is no 
reason to suspect falsehood, it was Kenulfus who framed the 
Rules and Constitutions of the Abbey; rules from which we 
may learn a great deal of the ordinary lives of the Monks ; and 
these rules were imported into the history from Egelric s work. 

Since Kenulfus (by the name of Turketulus) is reckoned 
amongst the historians before Ingulfus, it would be possible 
that passages which we propose to take for history written by 
Egelric were written by Kenulfus, but that in his time (as we 
have observed before) the abbey had no History. We may 
learn something more of this first Abbot than appears in the 
Ingulfus from the life of the bishop Ethelwold, and the 
preface thereto which Elfric wrote and dedicated to this 



48 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

same Kenulfus when he was made the bishop of Winchester 
in 1005. 

In that life of Ethelwold and the preface thereto Elfric 
refers to an early companionship between himself and 
Kenulfus. I suppose they were acquainted at Abingdon, 
(not in the bishop's College at Winchester,) — but wherever 
it might be we see that their friendship endured for 
more than 20 years. In this life of Ethelwold, written 
in latin by one of his disciples for another who was 
about to take his place at Winchester, we have evidence 
of a state of learning and manners which is quite incon- 
sistent with Malmesburys pictures of the English clergy of 
that age. 

There is in this portion of the Ingulfus a passage which 
must have a place in our notice of Kenulfus. 

In speaking of the death of Turketulus in 975 we have, 
mixed up with fiction, the following scene enacted at the 
death-bed-side of Kenulfus (who died in 1006) ; It was written 
no doubt, by Egelrie, and Ingulfus thought fit to admit it. 

"In the burning dog-days of that year (975) Turketulus 
caught a fever against which he contended for three days 
with more than his usual courage ; on the fourth day he took 
to his bed and all the convent, which consisted of 47 
monks and 4 lay brothers were called into his chamber." 
[When they were assembled he ordered the dominus Egelrie 
who was then the purveyor to produce before them certain 
precious Reliques which had been given by Henry the Emperor 
of Germany, Hugo the King of France, the Prince Lewis 
of Aquitaine and many others Dukes and Earls Nobles and 
Prelates to secure the goodwill and friendship of the Kings of 
England: — all this must be spurious, and a part of what 
follows, — ] 

Now there were two Egelrics cousins in the flesh but 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBP^Y. 49 

brothers in christian faith, one the purveyor, the other the 
proctor; — TJiese two and the prior Amfridus were the Abbot's 
principal counsellors as long as he lived. 

" The fever increased daily, and as the Abbot drew near 
his end he took the sacraments. 

"The cross which the servants had brought out of the 
church was given to him to kiss : He threw his arms round 
it; — it is not easy to describe with what sighs, with what 
sobs and what tears and how often he kissed it, or the 
devout ivords he uttered over each of Christ's wounds. 

"All the Monks present were moved to tears also, and 
during all their lives they never lost the recollection of 
his devotion. 

"The day before his death he made a short sermon to such 
of the Monks as were present as to the observance of order 
and brotherly love : He exhorted them to beware of negligence 
in ivorldly matters, as well as in things spiritual, and to 
be diligently watchful of their fires : In what he said of fire 
he either meant that they should keep alive an ardent 
christian charity, or he had in his imagination the combustion 
of the house against which he wished to warn them, for he 
frequently and earnestly prayed them, (prophetically, as it 
were), above all things to be careful about fires. 

" When he was about to depart, he asked them for their 
prayers ; and then, silently praying for all his people, he bid 
each of them farewell." 

There is something respecting fire in this passage which 
is not very intelligible. 

The Fire happened in 1091 ; and from what is said of the 
folly of a Plumber as the cause it may seem to have been a real 
case of misfortune (not a wilful act) : It is naturally enough 
described, and such an accident may have happened at Crow- 
land or anywhere else, but something will be said hereafter 

E 



50 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

on the subject. I insert the account of the Exhortation in 
a foot note.* 

It is said that Turketulus was buried at Crowland.t 

Kenulfus whom Turketulus on his death bed represents 
was buried, according to the authority in the note, at Crow- 
land ; — He was buried either at Crowland or at Burgh unless 
he was carried to Winchester after his death. 

But it is possible that he also, as well as Wulfketulus, was 
buried at Burgh near the grave of the Abbot Eldulfus ; and 
in any case he seems to have retained his residence at, and to 
have governed until his death without leaving Crowland, the 
clergy and people of the diocese of Winchester ; (that he 
ceased to govern the monks of Crowland on the 21st October 
1005 seems not to be true). 

The Normans were quite capable of carving^ tombs and 
inscriptions to serve as supports to their histories, their 
Writers, however, had one redeeming quality, they had 



* " Brevem sermonem faeiens de ordinis observant id, de caritate fra- 
ternd, de negligentid tarn in temporalibus quam in spiritualibus cavendd, 
et de ignis nostri diligenti custodid : Sive caritatem snpponebat sive com- 
bustionem loci significabat quam prcecaveri cupiebat cum istud verbum 
Ignem vestrum optime custodite frequenter et ferventer, quasi prophetice, 
commonebat." 

f In the Monasticon II. 95 (it is said, from the Ingulfus) that Turketulus 
died the 3rd of July 975 in his 68th year, and was buried in his Church 
at Crowland at the right-hand side of the high altar next Eldulfus the 
Abbot of Burgh and Oodman Abbot of Thorney ; — that the Abbot Egelric 
the elder died the 4th of August 984, and the Abbot Egelric the younger 
the 7th of March 992; — that they were buried near each other in the 
Chapter-House at Crowland ; and that the Abbot Osketulus died the 21st of 
October 1005, and was succeeded by the second Godric ; It is not said 
where Osketulus was buried : 

We find in the Kalendar of the Church of Burgh that the Abbot Eldulfus 
(therein called a Bishop for he ivas an Archbishop) was buried (at Burgh) 
on the 5th June, (this was the 5th June 1002). 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 51 

literary tastes ; — when they were free they could write in 
the interests of literature, and sometimes they did and did 
good service. 

Many real incidents in the life of Kenulfus may be read in 
the Ingulf us ; some of those incidents are said to be incidents 
in the life of the historian Egelric, others (of equal, or to 
my thinking, of greater value) are divided amongst the 
fictitious Abbots Turhetulus, Egelric the elder and Osketulus. 



52 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE ABBOT EGELKIC. — HIS EARLY LIFE. 

We can hardly suppose that any part of the Crowland 
History was written by Kenulfus. If Egelric be the writer of 
the rest of the first part of the real history the story therein 
respecting Peykirk must have been written by Elfwinus, of 
whom and of Kenulfus a short notice will suffice : (our notice of 
Egelric will not be so short.) 

The History says of Egelric that he was devoted to hooks and 
sacred literature but not skilful in the management of temporal 
affairs ; and this, as it will be seen, was the very character of 
the man. 

Egelric was educated under Elfric in the Monastery of 
Burgh. He must have been admitted when a boy and 
he was afterwards a monk of that place, — a particular 
which for a certain reason does not appear in the Crowland 
history. 

The reason is that Ingulfus when he compiled that history 
was the Servant of Lanfranc, and he would have displeased 
Lanfranc if he had not endeavoured to establish the supre- 
macy of the Archbishops. — That could hardly have been done 
if he, Ingulfus, had honestly and truly written of Egelric as he 
ought, and had related certain particulars of his life of which 
he must have been informed. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 53 

We have sufficient evidence that it was the will of 
Lanfranc to have a history of Crowland written, — that 
Ingulf us should write it, — and that therein all mention of the 
claims or rather the Bights of the church of Burgh should 
be suppressed: it was intended that Ingulfus should take 
or he was advised to take, as little notice as possible of the 
abbot Elfric or of any of his belongings. 

The norman clergy who, as will be seen in my forty-first 
Chapter were undermining the native tongue of their own 
countrymen, had a visible contempt for everything english, — 
the english tongue, the english clergy, and english literature; 
They thought they should be able to stop our tongues also, 
that is to say, they intended to impose the french tongue 
upon us, and that our histories should be so rewritten that 
in due time disagreeable facts would be forgotten. 

Until the year 1066 some of our bishops were Abbots but 
in general they were Monks only of the ordinary degree, 
who, because their Abbots (the proper judges) thought them 
sufficiently learned were appointed to watch and keep the 
clergy and people of each of the ancient dioceses in the 
observance of the laws of the Church. These bishops re- 
tained their station as Monks, continued to reside in their own 
Monasteries, and obeyed their own Abbots. 

It seems that this was a system quite opposed to the 
customs and inconsistent with the policy of the clergy abroad ; 
There a Bishop was not in general a Monk confined to 
Cloisters, but had a residence somewhere else within his 
diocese. 

JEgelric, in the School before, was one of the Monks of Burgh 
after his Abbot Elfric was made an Archbishop of York, but 
no Writer in the interests of the church of Canterbury could 
conveniently mention either this or some other particulars of 
his life. 



54 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

Our conjectures founded upon what we read persuade us 
that Egelric's parents were people of some eminence in the 
world ; — that he was horn in the neighbourhood of Burgh, and 
sent to Burgh in or about the year 1010 (when he was 
perhaps eight years old) ; — and that he was less likely to have 
been destined by his parents, than persuaded in the Abbey to 
become a Monk. 

It is probable, as we shall show, that when in 1013 the 
Abbey was plundered, burnt and made uninhabitable he was one 
of the inmates who found a home for a time at Crowland. 

He became a Monk ; and notwithstanding what is said of 
him in the Durham history and by Florence, he was most 
likely living at Crowland in 1020, when he was taken to 
Durham as after mentioned. It seems that after the abbey 
of Burgh was rebuilt but before he was made a bishop of 
Durham he left Durham and was again a Monk of Burgh, — 
that in 1042 whilst he was a monk at Burgh he was 
made abbot of Crowland and bishop of Durham and 
went again to live at Crowland, — and that in 1056, after 
another absence of fourteen years, he returned from Crow- 
land and resided again under the Abbot Leofric at Burgh. 

Almost all our old historians mention the time and the 
reason for Egelric's visit to Durham in 1020. 

" Simeon of Durham " (says Patrick), " in his History — 
(Book III. Chap. 6) relates that when Edmund was elected 
Bishop of Durham he refused to be consecrated and con- 
firmed in his office by the archbishop Wulstan of York, who 
was then at Worcester, until he was made a Monk." 

Patrick proceeds to this effect: — On his return from 
Worcester to Durham Edmund took the Abbey of Burgh in 
his way ; he was pleased with what he heard and saw of 
monastic discipline at Burgh, and when he left he besought 
the Abbot to let him take with him a Monk who was conversant 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 55 

in such matters that he might learn the rules of St. Benedict ; 
He proposed to introduce monkhood and those rules 
amongst the canons of Durham ; and for this purpose the 
abbot gave him Egelric one of his monks. 



There is truth in this story but it is very unfaithfully told ; 
— there are several objections thereto ; — One is that the 
archbishop Wulstan, (who was a secular clergyman?) was resi- 
dent at this time at Winchester — not at Worcester ;— another, 
that the bishop of Durham who was unwilling to be 
consecrated by Wulstan was not Edmund but Edmund's 
successor — whose name was Elfwinus; other objections will 
be mentioned hereafter. 

We have, however, a token of the good qualities of Egelric 
in this, that at the end of the reign of the bishop who desired 
to convert the canons of Durham he was made the next 
bishop of Durham. It was Elfric (the archbishop after 
Wulstan) who made this appointment, and though Egelric s 
knowledge of the Canons converted into Monks and his general 
knowledge of the Clergy within the diocese might be one 
of the inducements thereto, it would be made ^principally 
in consequence of Elfric's opinion of his character and 
talents. 

It seems that the diocese of Durham was entrusted to 
Egelric in the year 1042. 

Though the Crowland History was in many particulars 
falsified by Ingulfus himself several passages which it contains 
as we now have it, must have been added a long time {some of 
them centuries, as it seems) after his death. 

He began, and wrote the first part of his work in Lanfranc's 
time, — and it will be seen that the name of Elfric as an Abbot 
of Burgh has no place therein : Though it is full of interpola- 
tions and other alterations it is not easy to believe that in 



56 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

this respect we have not the history as he wrote it : There 
may be a question whether he followed his own will. 

I think he did ; that he disliked Elfric and Burgh and took 
no pains to conceal it ; and that he really desired to cover 
the dishonesty and serve the pretensions of his patron. How 
is it that in the Crowland history there is no mention of the 
intermediate change in Elfric's time in the name of Burgh 
from Medeshamstead to Girvum, — the town of that tribe of the 
Anglians who were called in latin Girvii ? 

Ingulfus was excessively grateful. The truth is he thought 
himself obliged to comply with the Archbishop's wishes and 
to write a history which should eclipse that of Burgh : this 
is an opinion which I shall be able to support in the course of 
my work. 



ON THE HISTOKY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 



CHAPTER X. 

AMENDED TABLE OF THE ABBOTS. — SOME OF THE HISTORIANS 
OF THE CHURCH OF BURGH. 

Instead of the Table of Abbots collected from the printed 
Irigulfus I now propose another. 



Allots of Croivland from its Foundation to the time of Ingulf us. 



1. Kenulfus, Allot from the foundation ly Ethelwold in 
King Edgars time till 1005 or perhaps 1006 (the year of his 
death). * 

2. Godric, a Monk of Burgh ; Allot from 1005 or 1006 
till he died in January 10 If . 

3. Elfwinus, Queen Emma's Chaplain, (Allot till 1042). 

4. Egelrie (the Historian and the Bishop Egelrie of 
Durham, Allot from 1.042 to 1048.) 

5. Wulfgatus, 1048 to 1052. 

6. Wulfketulus, 1052 till he was succeeded ly Ingulf us. 

Was it under the Charter of Foundation ? or how did it 
happen that so many of the abbots of Crowland after 
Kenulfus and hefore Ingulf us (and including, as it seems, the 
abbots of Peykirk) were promotions from the abbey of 
Burgh ? The abbots of Burgh bestowed the appointments. 



58 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

There was but one abbot Egelric of Crowland and no 
abbot Osketulus. (There was an Abbot of Ely of the name 
of Oschitellus — see preceding Chapter VI.) 

Abbot Elfwinus was made bishop of Durham in 1020 ; He 
was the Brithmer of the spurious table of Abbots : He ceased 
to be the bishop of Durham in 1042 in which year he was 
succeeded by Egelric both in the Abbey and in the Bishoprick. 

Egelric held the Abbey till 1048 when he gave place there- 
in to Wulfgatus ; and the Bishoprick till 1056 when he 
returned to Burgh, and his Brother Egelwinus was the next 
Bishop of Durham. 

As to the phantom the Abbot Egelric the elder : 

I suppose Egelric may have left some memorial of himself 
at Crowland when he went to Durham in 1020; He may 
have written some piece in which his name appeared with a 
date and the place in which it was written, — 

Such a piece if it fell into the hands of the Beconstructors 
of the Crowland History after the time of Ingulf us, they — 
knowing that this Monk of Burgh was not an Abbot till 1042 
might think there were huo Abbots of the name of Egelric, 



With a wish to make my account of Egelric intelligible I 
must now turn from Crowland to Burgh. 

The abbey of Burgh was very rich in the number of its 
historians and in the information which, often by accident, 
they impart. 

We do not now speak of Bede or of Elfric, or reckon amongst 
the Historians of Burgh the Abbots at whose command certain 
portions of its History were compiled— as Ernulfus, made 
Abbot in 1107— Martin of Bee in 1133— Benedict in 1177— 
or Be Gaux in 1249 : — Three of these, Ernulfus, Benedict and 
Be Caux were writers themselves, and their works remain ; 
the two last wrote Burgh history but Benedict incidentally 



ON THE HISTOKY OF CKOWLAND ABBEY. 59 

only,— each of these four Abbots employed officers to continue 
the history in his time ; and Benedict and the men whom he 
and Ernulfus and Martin employed wrote in the way which 
normans approved. 

Ernulfus and Benedict were ex-priors of Christ- Church, 
(the Church of the Canterbury Archbishops.) 

Ernulfus died in 1124 at the age of 84-; — it need hardly 
be said he was a cotemporary with Ingulfus ; — and it is certain 
that Ingulfus and he knew each other perfectly. 

Ernulfus employed one Hugo to compile a history of 
Burgh, a very young man whose work is well known, and he 
employed another writer also who was not a Monk. 

Benedict used for his purposes the pen of a credulous and 
simple person, a monk of the name of Walter of Whittlesea 
who began with a part of the history of Abbot Martin's time. 

Before king Richard the Crusader came to the throne, 
and when he was but an undutifnl son of the second Henry, 
Benedict was his Confessor ; and afterwards when the prince 
was become the Abbot's king and was a prisoner in Germany 
his spiritual father wrote an account of his adventures to the 
time of his imprisonment, — a work of which a translation has 
recently been published ; It seems to have been written to 
move the rich to contribute the more largely towards the 
ransom. 

Gunton (p. 149) informs us (from his John of Trihingham) 
that on the 15th September 1199, (this was five years after 
Benedict's death who died before the prisoner's return), he 
(the captive released and who was mindful of the past) renewed 
the charters which he had granted to Benedict and the 
Convent on his accession in 1189. 

Patrick also mentions the charters which Richard granted 
to the Church of Burgh in his first year and others of a later 
date but before 1192, (in which year he set out for Palestine). 



60 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

This prince must have been often at Burgh between the 
year 1177 and king Henry's death : It seems pretty certain that 
Whittlesea was forbidden to speak of penitential visits. 

The historian of Burgh in Be Cauxs time was an Officer 
of the Church whose name was Robert of Swaffham ; and this 
writer like his Abbot seems to have been judicious and honest 
as far as his duties would permit. 

Patrick's extracts from his Oracle show that there was also 
another and a good scriptor burghensis between Whittlesea and 
Swaffham. 

Parts of the works of Hugo, Whittlesea and Swaffliam were 
published in 1724 by Joseph Sparke (a clergyman of Burgh 
and the Registrar of the spiritual court there). 

Swaffham's Booh or a copy of it (a Manuscript which 
is still kept where it ought to be), was a great authority 
with Br. Patrick in his edition of and additions to Gunton, — 
We see in the extracts which he (Patrick) made therefrom 
that Swaffham contains if not quite the whole of Hugo's 
work, a great deal which Hugo did not write but which 
Swaffham took from Whittlesea and other Burgh writers ; — 
Whittlesea's book was Gunton's Walter of Whittlesea, — his 
principal but not the best of his authors. 

Gunton, who was also a clergyman of Burgh, wrote his 
history in the time of the Commonwealth, and whilst he was 
living at, and serving the parish church of Pytchley. — It 
seems that after his death Patrick bought the Manuscript, — 
and he published it with his own additions in 1686. 

Gunton does not appear to have had amongst his materials 
any historical or other piece which Egelric wrote although 
he had in several Copies of the Ingulfus not the very same 
but nearly the same account of the event of 1013 as we have 
in Savile's and in the Oxford Editions of the Ingulfus: — 
I mean of the destruction of Medeshamstead in 1013. but the 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 61 

account in his Ingulfus like that in Savile's is disguised as 
an account of the earlier destruction in 870. It is clear that 
he (Gunton) helieved some of his authorities when he ought 
not, or he would have understood that account as we under- 
stand it now. 

The visit of the Danes in 1013 was history in the time of 
Ingulfus; — history which Egelric wrote and history which 
Ingulfus ought to have made apart of his own ; — he must have 
found Egelric's story of that destruction in some account 
of Elfric and Burgh ; — it is fair to suppose that he did make it 
a part of his own work but that it was not suffered to stand, 
without the introduction of a false date. 

My argument is that Egelric truly recorded an event in 
which he had a part, but that it was an object at Canterbury 
to get rid of Elfric and his people and therefore it was made 
an event of 870. 

We will show beyond question that the event described as 
an event of 870 was an event of 1013. 



All history agrees that in 870 the Danes destroyed the 
Monastery at Medeshamstead and that it lay waste for about 
100 years, till it was rebuilt in Edgar's time. It is also 
certain that under Elfric and after 992 the bones of Saint 
Kyneburga were brought from Caster to Burgh and buried 
in the church at Burgh. 

In the Copy of the Ingulfus which Savtte published and in 
Gunton s Copies certain words respecting those bones which 
appear in the Oxford edition are wanting ; Patrick saw but 
without making any observation thereon, that in page 23 of 
the Oxford edition the treading those remains underfoot in 
the church at Burgh was imputed to the Danes of 870. 

Now as the Abbey at Burgh was neither repeopled nor 
rebuilt after 870 until the year 972, and as Kyneburga was not 



62 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

removed from Caster into that Church before 992 (nor as it 
seems till after 1002) this act of impiety must have been an 
act of the Danes of 1013 (not of the Danes of 870). 

It will be the business of a subsequent chapter to show 
that Egelrie the monk of Burgh and bishop of Durham 
and Egelrie the abbot and historian of Crowland were one 
and the same. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 63 



CHAPTER XL 

HISTORY WRITTEN BY EGELRIO MADE PART OF THE 
INGULFUS. 

It is said in the Ingulfus that the later part of the History — 
(of the history previous to the time of Ingulfus) was written by 
the abbot Egelric : I doubt if any part of it were written at 
Crowland, but the normans may have found there, and they 
respected and left as it was, much of what he wrote. 

Seeing that our knowledge is imperfect of the ordinary 
life and habits of the english people on the eve of the 
norm an times, it is fortunate that so much history written 
by an Egelric has been preserved. This part of the Ingulfus 
ought never to have Jbeen connected with the tales of the 
Sempectae, — Its relations of many incidents and facts do 
not seem to have been materially altered, or are altered 
in particulars only which may be restored. 

I have sometimes thought that we are better acquainted 
with a stranger when we have seen something of Ms mind, 
(exhibited, for instance, in a letter which he had written,) than 
if we had seen him in the street. It is with a satisfaction 
of this kind that I make myself acquainted with Egelric and 
hear him relate particulars which Ingulfus made a portion of 
the Crowland history. 



G4 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

His character has been unjustly and wilfully damaged ; — 
He was (as we have seen) an exemplary Monk ; there is no 
reason to doubt that his was an exemplary life throughout, 
and that matters which the norman writers have recorded 
against him are false. 

I have seldom risen from my extracts respecting Egelric 
without a more settled persuasion that the clergy of 
Canterbury in and for many years after Lanfranc's time 
were satisfied that they could hreah up and so reconstruct 
and rewrite our church history that in later times it 
would not be understood, — I mean that people would not 
take the trouble to try to understand it. 

Though we are invited to believe that Egelric continued 
a history of Crowland (and in latin) which began with 
the recitals of the Sempectae translated into that tongue, 
he most likely wrote whatever he did write in english. 
I suppose he wrote more pieces than one, and that what we 
have of his in the Ingulfus is a translation only worked into 
a latin history, — and, except the PeyMrk story, I also suppose 
that mediately through Ingulfus, we owe to Egelric's pen all 
the earlier history of Crowland which is genuine, (always 
excepting the account of the troubles of Wulfgatus), — and that 
what Egelric wrote he wrote not entirely but chiefly from his 
own knowledge supplemented from information acquired from 
Elfrie and the monies of Burgh, Other particulars he pro- 
bably learned in the course of conversation with the preceding 
abbot of Crowland, Godric. 

It is not necessary to believe with Sir Francis Palgrave 
that all the Ingulfus is absolute faol.es. When Ingulfus 
wrote falsely he had reasons for it, and generally, when he copied 
from Egelric, he wrote or had a mind to write the truth. We 
should prefer to think (if we could) that Ingulfus was an 
honest man ; many of the statements in the Book which we 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 65 

call by his name were invented by the Malmesburys of those 
or later times, but if we ought not to call Ingulfus a Malmes- 
bury the critics who thought him a knave were not very 
unreasonable. 

Let us now proceed with our task and endeavour with 
Egelric's help to understand rightly something of the history 
of Growland: — Much of what he tells us belongs to the 
history of Burgh. 



66 A LIGHT ON THE HISTOKIANS, AND 



CHAPTEE XII. 

EXTRACTS FROM HISTORY WHICH IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN 
WRITTEN BY EGELRIC ; — PEYKIRK. 

We must begin with the Story of Saint Peg's. (It was never 
written by Egelrie.) 

On the death of Kenulfus in 1006 (if not in October 1005) 
Godric a Monk of Burgh succeeded and was the second 
Abbot : — It seems that in the time of Kenulfus the monks of 
Crowland built and sent a few of their number to inhabit a, 
house in a marsh about five miles from Burgh and some- 
thing nearer to Crowland. This place which in the Crowland 
history is called St. Peg's is now called Peyhirh. It is said 
in that history (but without any appearance of truth) that 
St. Peg was a sister of St Guthlac, the patron Saint of Crowland 
Abbey ; that she inhabited a cell in this Marsh on the site 
of which the house colonized by the monks of Crowland 
stood ; and that it was when her brother died that she took 
up her abode in the tabernacle which afterwards became a 
Monastery — (This was long before Crowland itself was built) ; — 

That this Monastery at Peykirk was one of those which were 
destroyed by the Danes in 870 and that after its destruction 
its lands were seized by the Mercian king Beorred ; that in 
the course of the next Century the place was again inhabited 
but was despoiled again by other Danes in 1013 ; after which 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 67 

it was again repaired and repeopled in the time, as it seems, 
of the Abbot Godric of Crowland. 

When we read that this sister of St. Guthlac went to live 
in solitude in a place which is described more than three 
centuries later as still but a swamp we are required to 
believe what is hardly credible, — Women seem always to have 
congregated when they become religious. We are told 
however that it was so, and are to understand (for it is 
implied) that in the time of the danish Kings a few of the 
monks of Crowland who inhabited a House built before those 
Kings reigned on a spot protected by the Abbots of Crowland 
were envied, persecuted and at last, expelled by the Monks of 
Burgh, and that those monks of Burgh set up a title to all the 
lands in the neighbourhood under a grant of King WulfJiere. 

Ingulfus gives us particulars of these matters as a portion 
of the Crowland history written by Egelric, but surely they 
were not written by Egelric as they appear in the following 
extracts. (My translations include the adulterations and 
mistakes in the printed Ingulfus.) 



" The Danish Kings Swain, Canute, Harold, and Hardicanute 
oppressed all England, and thereby making many changes the 
privileges of Monasteries were lost and the limits and bounds 
of possessions blown away. There was an instance of this in 
the destruction in Hardicanute's time of St Peg's monastery at 
Peykirk when the money of the Abbot of Burgh," &c. 

" At that time the monks of Burgh were great people — 
(maxi?nee fuerant opinionis, ita ut totus mundus abiret post eos) 
— so great that all the world was to walk behind them ; and 
many of the Optimates of the land summi pontifices (bishops 
and archbishops) and others, nobles and governors of provinces 
chose to be buried amongst them. 

" These Monks put out their greedy horns most impudently 

f 2 



68 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

towards our Monastery. The Dominus Wulfketulus my pre- 
decessor pretended not to see the injury, and the loss to our 
Monastery was winked at. Shame! shame it is ! they slept, — 
slept too soundly and too long ; — it was a lethargy, but I hope 
by means of the King's goodwill to get the lands again which 
we had 330 years ago." 

In other parts of the history Ingulf us, more explicitly still, 
writes to the following effect : — 

" Baldoe Abbot of Peykirk dying in 1017 was succeeded 
by Wulfgatus a man very provident in worldly matters and 
very religious ; — This was the Abbot who afterwards pleaded 
manfully against Leofric Abbot of Burgh, but the king's 
Court favoured the more powerful and gave sentence against 
the poorer man ; so weighty was the money of the Abbot 
Leofric and so great the power of Earl Godwin that in the 
end Wulfgatus lost the site of his Monastery ; — but of this 
matter hereafter." 

In another passage. 

" In the times of Swain, Canute, Harold and Hardicanute 
the lands and privileges of many Monasteries were lost 
according as the money of rich men prevailed, of which the 
destruction of the Abbey of Peykirk in the time of Hardi- 
canute is an instance : 

" At that time the money of the abbot of Burgh prevailed 
against the right of the monks of Peykirk and the power of 
earl Godwin against the simplicity of the poor." 

I suppose this story is not altogether a fiction. 

The abbot of Burgh De Caux, who made great use of his 
Copy of the Ingulfus mentions the matter in his Chronicle in 
the following words : — 

" MXLYIII. Wulfgatus Abbot of Peykirk lost the site of 
his Abbey with all the Manors formerly pertaining thereto 
by the Judgment of King Canute against Kenulfus and 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 69 

Kinsinus Abbots of Burgh who claimed that Monastery of 
Peykirk as their own property." 

This is De Caux's version of the story in the Ingulfus but 
his Chronicle as we now have it is not perhaps entire : Canutus, 
during all whose reign Elfrie was abbot of Burgh died in 
1035, and in his time Elfrie was the only Abbot who could 
have anything to do with such a Claim ; neither was there 
such a Judgment in the time of Hardicanute who began to reign 
in 1040 and died in June 1042 ; but though the date of the 
Judgment cannot be right Peykirk and its manors were 
found to belong to Burgh before 1048, (that is to say, before 
the 6th year of Edward the Confessor). 

From the restoration of Burgh in Edgar's time till the 
year 1002 Mdulfus was the Abbot, and though Elfrie his 
Successor was Abbot from 1002 till his death in 1051, as he 
was extruded as early, as it seems, as 1043 if not before and 
Kinsinus put in his place, we may suppose that De Caux the 
author of this version of the story of Wulfgatus, condemned 
the intruder Kinsinus for the Event of 1048, not Elfrie, who 
is scarcely visible at Burgh between the year 1036 and the 
day of his burial; — if it be not so, he did not sufficiently dis- 
tinguish between the suit of the abbots of Burgh and the 
suits of Fernotus and the rest. 

Though neither Gunton nor Patrick nor any of the His- 
torians of Burgh ancient or modern except De Caux include 
either Elfrie or Kinsinus in the list of the Abbots of Burgh, 
De Caux on three different occasions names the Abbot 
Kinsinus ; The abbot Leofric of the Ingulfus seems also to 
mean Kinsinus, and Leofric probably was Kinsinus in Gunton's 
Copies : — (see Gunton, p. 15, in the margin,) 

The complaints are of unrighteous Judgments in 1048 in 
the Courts of King Hardicanute, — I suppose King Edward 
was not to be named in such a case. 



70 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 



OHAPTEK XIII. 

FURTHER EXTRACTS FROM THE HISTORY WHICH IN THE 
INGULFUS IS ATTRIBUTED TO EGELRIC. 

To proceed with our Extracts from the Ingulf us. 

"In the time of Brithmer Abbot of Crowland (as was 
touched upon a little above) the venerable father Wulfgatus 
the Abbot of Peykirk sustained a long " [series of calumny 
and injustice, including a law] " suit set on foot — proh nefas I 
by Elsinus, Mrwinus aud Leofricus Abbots of Burgh : 

" At last he succumbed, and by the Judgment of the King's 
Court he lost the very Site of his Monastery, — so money pre- 
vailed at that time over justice, and craft against truth, and so 
powerful was earl Godwin in the court of king Hardicanute. 

" When the aforesaid abbot had suffered this misfortune " 
— (after sentence was pronounced) — "he laid foundations on 
the banks of the neighbouring stream called the Wetland 
within his manor of North- Burgh ; — to this new Site he 
proposed to transfer his Abbey, the Church the Dormitories 
and the other offices for the Monks ; in this work he laboured 
industriously and was helped by the charity of many faithful 
people. 

"But there was a soldier, one Fernotus, the lord of 
Bosworth (an estate in the manor of Northburgh) who put in 
a Claim ; His claim was founded upon this that his 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 71 

progenitors had given the manor of Northburgh to the 
monastery of St. Pega and to the monks of that monastery- 
present and future who should serve God on that spot ; 
— and these terms of the gift he clearly showed to the Abbot 
on the face of the deed — (the grant itself) : — Fernotus 
alleged that, according to the words of the gift, when the 
abbot Wulfgatus and his monks ceased to serve God on that 
spot, and when the Site of the monastery was adjudged 
not to be his the manor of Northburgh also was no longer his. 

"And this was the opinion of the king's Justiciary and 
he pronounced accordingly ; — he awarded, at once, the said 
manor of JNTorthburgh with all its appurtenances to the 
aforesaid soldier as his hereditary right ; — and in this way 
the manor was alienated and transferred for ever from the 
monks of Peykirk." 

[Wulfgatus believed that prayers said and masses sung in 
a building a little nearer the river would be as efficacious as 
if they were said or sung on the very spot on which St. Peg's 
cell was reputed to have stood : he thought if he built on 
another site it could make no difference, but it seems the 
lawyers knew better.] 

The Ingulf us proceeds, — 

" And now (for troubles never come single) as it soon 
became known throughout the Kingdom that the abbot of 
Peykirk had first lost his monastery and then his manor of 
Northburgh, the next thing was that another soldier, Edmerus 
the lord of EoTbrook, sued for his manor of Maxey ; Horsing 
of Wath for his manor of Badington ; Earl Siward for his 
manor of Barnach, and the treasurer Hugolinus for his 
manor of Heljoston, and many others for their manors, which, 
till then, belonged to the Abbey of Peykirk. All these 
Claimants brought forward the same cause of complaint, and 
they all succeeded against the said Monks who were thus 



72 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

wickedly and cruelly first cast out of the Monastery and then 
deprived of their Estates. 

" Wulfgatus and his eighteen Monks were then completely 
destitute ; They wandered and were blown about for a time 
in extreme misery, but afterwards the good king Edward 
pitied them ; — he had them assembled before him, — provided 
them with necessaries, — and told them to come every day to his 
own Chapel and Hall" 

The Ingulfus, as T understand it, says (in effect) that the 
claim of the Abbots of Burgh was set on foot in Elfric s time, 
and was defended during and after the time that Brithmer (Elf- 
winus) was Abbot of Crowland (which was from 1020 to 1042). 

I think we are to see in these Extracts a succession of Suits 
to recover Lands from Peykirk which followed each other till 
the time of the Abbot Kinsinus, — an intruder, not a canonical 
Abbot till 1051,— and who ceased to be Abbot in 1055. 

It is said that Wulfgatus was providus, but I -think he 
was not : It is said also that till king Edward gave him the 
Abbey of Crowland he was destitute, but the story is not truly 
told. Wulfgatus lost the first suit and he and his Monks were 
ejected, but his destitution was a consequence of the adverse 
suits of Fernotus and the rest, — a consequence, but not a 
necessary consequence of the earlier suit. 

We know that Elsinus means Elfric, — and if Elfric set that 
earlier suit on foot it was not continued (as is inconsiderately 
implied) as long as he lived and after his death. It was 
certainly ended and the monks of Peykirk expelled in his 
lifetime. De Cauxsays, however (confounding the Suit of the 
Abbots of Burgh with the subsequent Suits) that it was con- 
tinued not by the Abbots Erwinus and Leofric (as in the 
Ingulfus), but by the Abbot Kinsinus ; and it might seem to 
be so if Kinsinus could be connected with the suits which were 
not determined before 1018. Bat on what pretence is either 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 73 

Envinus or Leofric condemned in the Ingulfus ? The reason 
is they were Abbots of Burgh : — The contradictions between 
the Ingulfus and De Caux cannot well be reconciled. 

Earl Godwin procured for Kinsinus the favour of the three 
successive Kings Harold, Hardicanute and the Confessor. 

And so the church of Burgh got a Judgment for the Site of 
Peyhirh before the other suits which were ended in 1048 
began. 

In the time when all the titles in the kingdom were to be 
examined (in 1085,) the charters of the church of Crowland 
were ordered to be produced before the Officers appointed 
to enquire, and charters were produced one of which men- 
tioned certain imaginary wanderings and privations of Wulf* 
gains and his monks, and then follows mention of the charity 
of king Edward. 

This Charter had a specious though it could not be an 
accurate date ; It is a piece worthy of the imagination of 
William of Malmesbury. 

Till the time of Ingulfus the Monks of Burgh elected their 
own Abbot, (this will be seen), and there is little or no doubt 
that they or their Abbot elected the Abbots of Crowland and 
Peykirk also. It can hardly be supposed that king Edward 
had anything to do with the Succession of Abbots at Crowland ; 
and it is plain enough that in 1048 Egelric resigned that 
Abbey in favour of Wulfgatus, and that Wulfgatus was sent 
from Burgh to rule at Crowland. 

Though Wulfgatus was really appointed or elected by the 
Church of Burgh and consecrated and made Abbot in Egelric's 
place by the abbot of Burgh (the Archbishop), — according to 
this Charter he was made Abbot by King Edward, who com- 
miserated and appointed the destitute Wulfgatus, not to succeed 
Egelric, but to succeed Brithmer deceased, (really Elfwinus, 
— who was a man in good health). 

In the words of the Charter, " Wulfgatus had indeed lost the 



74 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

Abbey of Peykirk but he had lost it by misfortune not 
crime and only by the sentence of a Court of laiv, — and as the 
monks of Crowland had lost their good abbot Brithmer by 
another misfortune the stroke of death, this Charter appointing 
Wulfgatus as the successor would heal two evils at once." 



It seems from all we hear that the House at Peykirk and 
its Inhabitants were always an eyesore to the monks of Burgh : 
It could hardly be a crime or even .a grievance that the men 
who were placed there should visit the sick though they 
might be sick tenants of the Church of Burgh. 

To understand the case and account for their fate we must 
believe that they were offensively active, and that they tres- 
passed beyond all bounds : It is likely that their zeal offended 
Elfric and that he endeavoured to make them more moderate, 
but he was content to play with the Suit ; not so Kinsinus, who 
followed it up to the end. I suppose Kinsinus found persist- 
ence was necessary in order to abate a nuisance. 

"We may mention here (on Dr. Patrick's authority, the 
Book Swaffham) and as a sequel to the above story that 
contention between the churches of Crowland and Burgh for 
the parish church and village of Peykirk did not cease for 
many years after the time of Wulfgatus. Suits were continued 
down to the time of the Abbot Be Says (made abbot of Burgh 
in 1116) but it seems that in his time the monks of Burgh 
were tired of law. All disputes were then finally settled by 
compromise, — an agreement was made in the Churchyard at 
Peykirk (the locus in quo), — witnesses were called, sworn and 
heard on both sides, and a court or hospital only which 
contained eight houses (almshouses) near the Church, was 
awarded to Crowland and the rest of the parish to Burgh. 

Swaffham gives the names of all the witnesses, — one of 
them was Robert the nephew [?] of the abbot Ingulfus. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 75 



CHAPTER XIV. 

REMARKS ON A PART OF THE HISTORY ATTRIBUTED TO EGELRIO. 

The date of the misfortunes of Wulfgatus, (the loss of his 
Abbey and lands,) is the same in our Ingulfus as in theAbbot 
Be Caux, — 1048. I have supposed that this date is not the 
date of the Judgment in favour of the Church of Burgh but 
of the last of the subsequent suits, the Judgments of the Court 
of King Edward. Canutus, the king's name in De Caux, if 
it be applied to the Judgment in the first Suit may be right — 
but adverse Judgments in king Edward's court would hardly 
be consistent with the story of the favour of that King towards 
Wulfgatus, (a reason for the use in the Ingulfus of the name 
of Hardicanutus). 

It is said that the suits of Fernotus and the others soon 
followed the first and that the last ended in 1048 : Attempts 
to fix dates in these law matters are hardly to be trusted. 

What is said of king Edward's charity may be read with- 
out admiration. 

We know not what became of the Monks of Peyhirh, and 
as to Wulfgatus himself the testimony of the Ingulfus is 
worthless. It is sufficiently certain that not later than the 
year 1048 Wulfgatus returned to his former Monastery at 
Burgh and was kindly received by the monks there, and that 
it was rather Egelric than king Edward who gave him the 



76 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

Abbey of Crowland — that is to say, Egelric resigned it in bis 
favour at the instance (as I suppose) of the monks of Burgh. 
We may be sure that Wulfgatus was never entertained by 
king Edward as the history states, for as long as earl 
Godwin lived that earl and the other patrons of Kinsinus 
were all-powerful at Court. 

We are told indeed by several of our more credible his- 
torians that this relentless adversary of Wulfgatus, Kinsinus, 
was king Edward's chaplain as well as king Harold's (the 
successor of Canutus) ; and it seems that Godwin had forced 
this same chaplain into king Edward's service also : it is not 
very likely that Wulfgatus ever saw that King. The secret 
of these falsehoods in the Ingulfus is, it was intended to assert 
that in king Edward's time and before, our kings were 
accustomed to appoint the abbots of Crowland. If we would 
understand the histories of our Monasteries we must read the 
Ingulfus and Malmesbury and all the other Canterbury writers 
of this and the two next centuries with distrust. 

It is observable, (and may oh this occasion be mentioned 
again,) that in De Caux's chronicle Kinsinus is repeatedly 
mentioned as an abbot of Burgh though he is excluded by 
all the professed historians of Burgh except Dr. Patrick, and 
he hesitates and doubts. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 77 



CHAPTER XV. 

FURTHER "REMARKS RESPECTING EGELRIC AND WULFGATUS. 

In what we read in the Ingulfus we are taught to understand 
that Peykirk was an appendage of and a colony from 
Crowland and was supported by Crowland in its Law Suits ; 
but even so much as this is by no means certain. The story 
of the misfortunes of Wulfgatus was written in Lanfranc's 
time when Peykirk had neither an Allot nor an Alley and 
when Crowland was freed from all the ancient Claims of 
the Abbots of Burgh. 

I have suggested that the Monks of Peykirk had given 
offence at Burgh, — I suppose this was in the time of Canutus 
and it is possible that for the time they had offended the 
Monks of Crowland also, and that Crowland was the source of 
the ruin of Peykirk though it suited the norman Abbot of 
Crowland when he compiled the History, to say nothing of 
their offence towards Crowland and only to condemn the 
effects of the resentment of the rival Church. 

And yet we must take it for granted that the Complainants 
at law were the Abbots of Burgh ; — Let us suppose that 
the Abbey of Peykirk was built at the joint Expense of 
Kenulfus and Eldulfus the cotemporary Abbots of Crowland 
and Burgh, and that the people who inhabited that place 
were sent there some of them from Crowland and others from 



78 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

Burgh, — for some time they were poor and the little piece 
of land which was the gift of the Etheling in 1016 was, no 
doubt, thankfully received. 

I suppose, again, that these people at Peykirk solicited 
charity in all quarters and that until they found Benefactors 
like that prince and like the ancestors of Fernotus and 
others they could not afford to take an answer. 

Wulfgatus was a man of consequence in his time or Elfric 
Avould not have inscribed to him his Discourse on the Trinity, 
but it is hardly possible that Elfwinus, who appears to 
have been the Abbot of. Crowland when Peykirk was ad- 
judged to belong to Burgh had much affection for either Wulf- 
gatus or for his place although when his troubles thickened 
and manor after manor was lost it might be different. Pity 
would come when the ruin of the Abbot and his Monks was 
complete. 

We are not told that the Abbots of Crowland encouraged 
Wulfgatus in his manful defence; and he could not be much in 
favour at Crowland, but as it would be known there that the 
means of the Monks of Peykirk were inconsiderable it is 
possible they did contribute towards the expenses. 

No sister of Guthlac ever had a Cell at Peykirk but I 
imagine the Monks of that place may have been sufficiently 
ingenious, and necessitous enough, {artful as well as poor) to 
invent the story ; and that in the course of two or three 
generations the invention grew into credit. Men like the 
notion of antiquity ; —It would be a special Charity to exhibit 
benevolence in such a case and the ancestors of Earl Siward 
and of Fernotus and others appear to have done a good deal 
to set these Monks at their ease. 

May we not suppose (for it would go towards an excuse for 
Ingulfus).that it was seen by the Monks of Crowland, also, 
that pretensions to antiquity were worth something ? Might 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 79 

not an example at Peykirk have something to do with the 
birth of the charter of king Beorred, a Charter which might 
have had a being before the coming of Ingulfus, — though 1 
think it had not ? 

As to the time when the fabrication of that Charter was 
effected, — Ingulfus mentions several proctors who were at dif- 
ferent times in the service of his Abbey, and one in particu- 
lar whose name was Alsford, (he lived at Freeston but was 
buried at Burgh) ; — This man was, probably, a very honest 
man, — It is said that about 1076 he abused his duty to the 
Abbey and that he was called to account for it ; he was signally 
punished, for it is also said that he was thrown from his horse 
and broke his neck. I suppose some predecessor of this 
Proctor's may have lent himself to an imposture which 
Alsford did not choose to maintain. 

As long as the people sent to Peykirk were left to shift for 
themselves it is likely that the fruits of their importunities 
were a considerable part of their means of subsistence, and 
that they often exercised those importunities within the 
Manors which belonged to Burgh and amongst the people 
who were the spiritual subjects of its Abbots. 

Burgh was a rich Monastery and all english monks were 
then Benedictines, but the monks there would be offended 
with any mendicants who were dressed in black, — offended in 
proportion to the number and amount of the gifts which they 
obtained. 



Another word as to the original Institutor of the suits 
against the Abbey of Peykirk. 



The name of Kenulfus is mentioned in Be Caux as one ot 
the litigant Abbots. Kenulfus was an Abbot of Crowland 
not of Burgh, and the Abbot whom we ought to take for the 



80 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

Abbot Kenulfus is always Eldulfus, the cotemporary Abbot 
of Burgh. Patrick also, in his comments upon Gunton 
(p. 251), observes (from the Oxford Ingulfus) that Elsinus 
(that is to say, Elf vie) claimed as belonging to Burgh the 
abbey of Peykirk and the manors belonging thereto as his 
predecessor Kenulfus (that is to say Eldulfus) had done. 

We read of a diutissima calumnia (an unjust Claim and 
unreasonable Complaints of long standing) ; — this must mean 
complaints which began in the time of Eldulfus (who died in 
1002). 

I think it may be shown (and I expect to show when I 
come to speak more particularly of Elfrie) that his Complaints 
or the Complaints of his church were reasonable, — that 
he earnestly remonstrated against injuries, — and in vain'; 
we see that remonstrances were followed by an unwilling 
prosecution of the law 7 Suit, and that it was the more rigorous 
Kinsinus who obtained the Judgment. 

There is a letter of the Abbot Elfrie' s in existence addressed 
to Wulfgatus which {according to the Catalogue wherein the title 
appears) seems to have been written on the subject of a Suit 
then in hand against Wulfgatus, (I suppose the suit for the 
Site of his Abbey), — and to show that Elfrie was unwilling to 
prosecute that Suit. A part of the letter is in the Codex 
No. 441 in the Harleian library (p. 131). 

I need say little more about this letter now, but I suppose 
that at the time it was written the appeals of Wulfgatus and 
his monks to the charitable were become scandalous, — and that 
no other means could be found which would answer the 
purpose and therefore the Suit was continued to the end. 

The title in the Harleian catalogue is this : — 

"Pars posterior Epistolse Elfrici ad Wulfgetum, sive 
Homilia saxonica in istud Esto consentiens adversario." 

The Ingulfus — properly understood — tells us in effect that 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 81 

Egelric wrote the Crowland History from its foundation in 
Edgar's time to a certain date, and that from the date at 
which Egelric ceased to write he himself took it up and 
continued it ; — and therefore for a long time I believed that 
the story of Wulfgatus was written by Egelric, as he did write 
History, though not as a part of a History of Crowland but 
as a part of either a History of Burgh or of a Life of Elfrie ; 
It was not however easy to believe this, for if Ingulfus found 
the story in anything which Egelric had written he must 
have made monstrous alterations therein 9 — and I now think 
otherwise, — the story is less likely to have been written by 
Egelric than by the preceding Abbot Elfwinus. 

The reproaches which in the Ingulfus are cast upon the 
'monks of Burgh unnatural in Egelric, would be less surprising 
if they were written by Elfwinus; — they are particulars 
which may have been collected from a source of which no 
mention is made in the Ingulfus and if they were originally 
written by Egelric they were altogether rewritten by Ingulfus: 
— Here let us rest. 



G 



82 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 



CHAPTER XVI. 

THE ABBOT ELFWINUS. — FURTHER NOTICE OF -WULFGATUS. 

If we consider a little we shall find that Egelric could not 
possibly, in any form, or in a work written in any language 
have spoken of the causes of the ruin of Peykirk in the 
manner mentioned in the Ingulfus ; and we shall see that we 
have not the real name of the writer of that story. 

Though the misfortunes of Wulfgatus did not come to an end 
till 1048 he lost the Site of Ms Abbey according to De Caux in 
the time of Canutus who died in 1035, and certainly not later 
than 1042, the year in which Elfwinus (the Queens chaplain 
and the bishop of Winchester after Elfric in 1033) ceased 
to be bishop of Durham and the abbot of Crowland. 

Whilst Elfwinus was the Abbot the fame of Mfric and 
of Burgh had eclipsed that of Ethelwold and Winchester : — 
Elfwinus was discontented and envious (and perhaps a disap- 
pointed man) — and I suppose that whilst he was at Crowland 
he had recorded certain facts in writings which Ingulfus 
found there. 

The tale of Wulfgatus was conceived in resentment and by 
an abbot of Crowland, — and there was some reason for 
the temper in which it was written. 

Ingulfus might understand that the Abbot Egelric was the 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 83 

author of an angry story which was really written by the 
Abbot Elfwinus ; — this is but just possible but still it is pos- 
sible and it would be well to think so, — the memory of 
Ingulfus may have laboured long enough under the imputa- 
tion of an unreasonable hatred of Burgh, — hatred shown 
more than elsewhere in the temper which is exhibited in the 
story of St. Peg ; — In any case the story was not an invention 
of his. — Ingulfus knew that he was accused of malice towards 
Burgh to the day of his death, and he seems to have felt he 
was a calumniated man : — We should find an excuse for him 
as often as we can or we may chance to be unjust. 

It may be that Ingulfus who did not name Elfwinus as one 
of the Contributors to the Crowland History, might not know 
who wrote the tale of St. Peg's ; he was wrong to let it pass 
for history written by Egelric but if he did but copy the tone 
of a tale which he believed to be true as well as the tale 
itself — if he did but think with another angry man, a former 
Abbot of Crowland, we might say his own malice disappears, 
— it is less visible. 



I think it is not a mistake to suppose that the Abbots of 
Burgh as Archbishops of York had a recognized right, in the 
regulation of church affairs north of the Thames, to appoint not 
to bishopricks only but to certain abbies also ; that is to say, — 
as to Bishops they named (not approved or rejected only) and con- 
secrated — and as to certain Abbies they appointed the Abbots 
at their own will, and had the right to reject other appoint- 
ments. Why else so many appointments of monks of Burgh ? 

In the case of these abbots as well as of all bishops this 
right would be comprised in the right to consecrate if Abbots 
were consecrated before 1066, and the Normans pretended they 
were. 

We have no reason to doubt that Edmund the Bishop 

G 2 



84 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

of Durham (the Aldhunus of the Durham History) as well 
as Godric the Abbot of Crowland, was a Monk of Burgh ; 
— Elfwinus was not, — he was made an Abbot of Crowland and 
a Bishop of Durham in the instance of the Court, — and was 
displaced in 1042 and Egelric appointed both to his Abbey and 
to the Bishoprick. 



We propose to devote the rest of this Chapter principally 
to Wulfgatus for whom Egelric made room in 1048. 

There are in the history of Burgh several incidents in the 
life of Wulfgatus. 

Elfric in the Chronicle spells his name Wulfgeat, that is, 
Wulfwalk, (equal to the german name Wolfgang). — He like 
all the subsequent abbots of Crowland until after 1066 was a 
monk of Burgh. 

It is not said where he was born or where he bad the 
earlier part of his Education; — When Elfric went from 
Abingdon to Burgh he could not have taken Wulfgatus with 
him, — Burgh was probably his School. 

The first mention of Wulfgatus in the Chronicle is under 
the date 1006, three or four years after Elfric was made Abbot. 

I may on this occasion correct one of the mistakes in my 
Book of 1830. It is there said (p. 201) that the Continuation 
of the Chronicles from 1016 to the end in the Copy called 
the Abingdon Copy (the Copy Tiberius B. 1), was probably 
written at Abingdon. — This is not the place for a Supplement 
to that hasty performance but I have seen since that the Con- 
tinuator of that copy for some time after 1006 was Wulfgatus. 

In Mr. Ebenezer Tliompsons Work cited in a preceding 
Chapter he describes a Volume which once belonged to the 
Church of Worcester but is now in the Bodleian Library, (a 
copy of the Book of Canons which Elfric composed by desire of 
the Archbishop Wulstan). 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 85 

Mr. Thompson mentions that there is on the face of that 
volume a note (in the saxon character) in the same hand- 
writing as the body of the book, a Note which contains a 
request that the reader will pray to God to bless and to forgive 
the sins of the writer of that Booh. 

"Me seripsit Wulfgeatus — scriptor wigorniensis ; or a 
(obsecro) pro ipsius nsevis Cosmi satorem, — et quod ille qui me 
seripsit semper sit fwlix." 

I take it for certain that this Wulfgeatus was the Wulfgeat 
of the chronicle, and our Wulfgatus the abbot of Feyhirh. 

The above-mentioned (the Abingdon) copy of the Chronicle 
contains the proper name of Wulfgatus in a passage which is 
very obscure ; — It is under the date 1006 (where Wulfgatus 
began as is said above) just previous to the mention of the 
death of the abbot Kenulfus of Crowland who died a bishop 
of Winchester in that year. 

"On tham ilcan geare wses Wulfgeate eall his are on- 
genumen" 

I believe (from what he says in his Chronicle) that Florence of 
Worcester ivholly misunderstood this passage in the text of ours 
(the Chronicles ivhieh he professed to translate). The following 
is Mr. Foresters version, — (the translator of Florence) — 

" King Ethelred stripped Wulfgeat Son of Leofsy his 
principal favourite of his Estate and Honours on account of 
his unrighteous judgments and arrogant deeds." 

The words in our Chronicle are referable not to any 
favourite of King Ethelred but to our Monk of Burgh, 
Wulfgatus; I believe they have been always thought to mean 
that an eminent man of the name of Wulfgeat was found 
guilty of some offence for which he either was punished or 
deserved punishment, and that the reader was left to con- 
jecture from what station it was that he fell or what honour 
he lost. 



86 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

I think we can answer such a question. 

A little before or in the course of the year 1006 Wulfgatus, 
then one of Elfric's young men at Burgh, became, rather 
prematurely, one of the Monks of that Church ; and was sent 
as early as the fourth year of Elfric's reign there to the 
Monastery at Worcester ; Whether for his merits or not we 
know not ; He was sent. 

But taking/ (and we must, we have no choice,) Wulfgeatus 
the scribe (scriptor) of Worcester and Wulfgatus the abbot 
of Peyhirh for the same, we may imagine that he was a 
person whom Elfric had employed to make a copy of the 
book of Canons which was written for the Monks of Worcester 
at the request of the Archbishop Wulstan, and that he sent 
this same Wulfgatus to Worcester to deliver the Copy to 
the prior of that Church with the letter which is prefixed 
thereto. — (Strange that both the copy and the letter are 
still in existence :) 

There are many things in the Copy of the Chronicle which 
is known as Tiberius B. I. (sometimes called the Abingdon 
sometimes Mr. Boyers Copy) which are not mentioned in 
any other copy except the Worcester copy (Tiberius B. IV.) 
I would suggest that the Scribe who made a copy of the 
Canons would be likely to make a copy of the Chronicle also, 
and that as Wulfgatus was the Scribe of the Church of 
Worcester he was more likely than anybody else to add there- 
to an account of subsequent events ; This, I suppose, he con- 
tinued to do for some years, till he left Worcester. The Abbot 
Baldoc, whom he succeeded as Abbot of Peyhirh, died, in 1017. 

But, as to the above-mentioned passage in the Chronicles. 

We have reason to believe that Elfric's School and Church 
at Burgh were models for all others, — I suppose perfect 
obedience and order were kept there, — order which was really 
beautiful, — and the greatest possible silence; but we may 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 87 

understand that at Worcester there was no order at all, and 
no obedience. 

I may be very wrong but my notion of the meaning of the 
line above quoted is this : — 

In this instance the word are does not exactly mean honour 
(aer) — but authority ; — a title to command and to respect ; — 
Wulfgatus was sent to Worcester as has been said to put two 
Manuscripts into the hands of the Prior there, copies which 
the bearer had made of two volumes, Elfric's Booh of Canons 
(with the letter annexed) and his Chronicle, — and with orders 
that if the copyist's services were acceptable he was to stay : 
— that the offer of services was accepted, and that Wulfgatus 
was forthwith appointed to the place of Scribe or Scriptor at 
Worcester. 

It seems that in those times it was one of the duties of the 
Scriptor to record at the end of every year (whenever that 
might be according to the mode of computing time in the 
place) the events of that year, — and I suppose that at the end 
of the year 1006 Wulfgatus did this at Worcester, beginning 
at the end of the copy of the Chronicle which he had brought 
with him from Burgh. 

Now, though we need not doubt that Wulfgatus was really 
well-disposed and good, it seems that he was of a timid and 
dejected spirit (what we should now call poor in spirit), and 
that when he sat down to recollect and to record the events of 
the year (1006) he was a little overcome : He was thinking, I 
suppose, of Burgh and of that neighbourhood, and of his friends 
at a distance,— and he fancied that, sent amongst the Monks 
of Worcester he was banished, dishonoured and disgraced ; — I 
believe it was in a dream of this hind that the expression 
mentioned above dropped from his pen, quaint enough in 
itself but a possible expression of what was passing in his 
mind whilst he wrote. 



88 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 



CHAPTEE XVII. 

WULFGATUS AND PEYKIRK CONTINUED. — ORIGINAL ENDOW- 
MENT OF BURGH. — AGATHO'S CHARTER. 

For some years after 1006 the life of Wulfgatus is obscure. 
Judging from the Manuscript Tiberius B. L, it might be sup- 
posed that he continued to be the Abbey scribe at Wor- 
cester, and continued the Chronicle there till 1016 ; but 1016 
was not the year of his return to Burgh for Burgh was not 
then inhabitable, — Elfric, the Monks and the School were 
put to flight in 1013 and for a second time the Monastery 
was lying in ruins. 

Gunton who found no mention of the event in his Walter 
of Whittlesea or in his Copies of the Ingulfus says nothing of 
that destruction in 1013, but Patrick from Ms Ingulfus (the 
Oxford Edition, p. 56) informs us that the Monastery was 
destroyed at that time ; we shall see that this is true. 

It seems likely that Wulfgatus was again a resident at 
Burgh in 1013 and that when the Monks took flight Ugelric 
and ~he were two of those who escaped and went to Crow- 
land. The Crowland history mentions the number only of 
the monks who went to Crowland, not their names, — a reserve 
which may be accounted for if they were people who some 
of them afterwards achieved distinction as Wulfgatus and 
Egelrie did ; — We may suppose that Egelric and Wulfgatus 
were refugees at Crowland as long as Elfric was absent 
abroad and till Burgh was rebuilt, and in this way we 






ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 89 

may account for their connection with Crowland and with 
Peykirk. 

The writer of that part of the Ingulfus who according 
to Ingulfus was Egelric, and who relates with so much bitter- 
ness the particulars of the ruin of Peykirk was not a monk of 
Burgh nor did he really sympathize with Wulfgatus, — 
supposing the text in the Ingulfus were entire Egelric would 
seem to be the person who imputed injustice to Ornaments 
of that church who had nothing to do with the fortunes of 
Wulfgatus, — it was not so — the part was written by Elfwinus 
but Ingulfus inspired by the language of Elfwinus, made 
additions to what he read, — and therein he also was unjust to 
the church of Burgh. 

I am a little diffuse on the subject of the ruin of Peykirk 
for the credit of Elfric's Abbey. 

According to the Ingulfus it seems doubtful whether the 
suit for the ground whereon Peykirk stood was instituted 
in the time of Elfric's second master Canutus, or in that of 
his first master Ethelred. It may be that his predecessor 
Eldulfus who was Abbot of Burgh till 1002 protested in 
his time and threatened the mischief which was afterwards 
done. 

It is nowhere said that the Abbots of Burgh instigated 
the suits of Fernotus and the others ; these suits were 
decided and probably all instituted when the Confessor was 
king and when Elfric, superseded at Burgh, was ending his 
life in obscurity. 

Bat there is no appearance of illegality or of unnecessary 
rigour in the Suit of the Allots of Burgh. 

Elfric was a good man — Kinsinus was not, — but we have 
little reason to think that Kinsinus, and none at all that either 
Erwinus or Leofricus had anything to do with the Suit of 
Fernotus. 



90 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

There is no reason assigned in the Ingulf us for the claim od 
which the Abbots founded their Suit ; — The Compiler of the 
Crowland history ought to have mentioned it. — There was a 
reason and it seems sufficient 

We shall see that in the year 664 (in the time of the 
Heptarehy) Wulfhere the first christian king of Mercia 
founded a collegiate Church at Burgh and that the place was 
then called Medeshamstead ; in Gun ton's History we have the 
boundaries of the Lands with which he endowed it. 

" From Crowland on the east to Wansford bridge on the 
west, and so northward to Easton and Stamford, all along by 
the river Welland to Crowland again." (Gunton, page 4.) 

In page 122 Gunton inserts a Copy of Wulfhere's Charter, 
after which he says : — 

" By this Charter it may appear that the bounds of the 
Monastery of Medeshamstead from East to West were twenty 
miles and that Thorney and Whittlesea with their appurte- 
nances were within the limits thereof ; but Saxulf intending 
to build Thorney, and authorized thereunto by King Wulfhere 
abated so much from his Monastery of Medeshamstead, and so 
made Thorney an entire Abbey of itself." 

The norman writers who neither loved king Wulfhere 
nor the abbot Ssexulfus — (the Head of that collegiate Church) 
— say that the Bishop Ethelwold built the Abbey at Thorney. 

The destruction of Medeshamstead in 870 is unquestion- 
able, and it continued in ruins for about a hundred years ; 
This is a matter known to all readers of our ecclesiastical 
History, and nothing more need be said in this place as to the 
origin of Burgh. 

Now the lands so given to Burgh (or Medeshamstead), 
(the lands were manors in King Edgar's time) were the lands of 
which the mercian King Beorred had taken possession after 
Medeshamstead was destroyed. They continued to be crown 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 91 

Lands after the time of the Heptarchy and they belonged to 
King Edgar when Crowland was built and when Medesham- 
stead was restored. 

We have seen that the restoration was a work of King 
Edgar's time ; In his time most of the lands of Monasteries were 
restored to the Clergy ; the greater part of the lands of the 
old was given again to the new monastery at Medeshamstead 
and Thorney and Crowland were endowed with the rest, — 
Guntons and Patrick's History, rightly understood, contains 
an account of all these matters and certain Charters also, — 
remarks on which will appear in my account of Burgh. 

The account of John of Tynemouth is that the ruins of 
Medeshamstead were sold by King Edgar to Bishop Ethelwold, 
the reconstructor of the Abbey; he meant that Ethel wold 
bought not the ruins only but all its lands and ancient 
rights. Ingulfus was ordered to deny it, but Ethelwold built 
on its lands (not rebuilt) Crowland Abbey, and it is possible 
that he built Peyhirh also, and about the same time. 

With Gunton's help in what he says of Wulfhere and of 
Sexulfus and Thorney we still see, notwithstanding the adverse 
tenor of the Crowland history, that Ethelwold helped in 
purse and in person to restore the ruined Abbey at Burgh 
and that he induced king Edgar to restore as far as a temporal 
prince could restore, the privileges granted to the Church at 
Medeshamstead by the Pope Agatho at the instance of the 
Mercian Kings. 

We have reason to believe that King Edgar not only gave 
again to the Abbots of Medeshamstead or confirmed as far 
as he could all the powers of the former Abbots or Governors 
of that Church from Bede's time to the time of the destruc- 
tion, but that he added thereto w r hat could not have been 
expressed in Agatho s Charter, a declaration that they should 
appoint the future Abbots of Crowland. 



92 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

It is plain, (our authorities ought not to be misunderstood,) 
that Ethel wold was not only the restorer of Ely, Medesham- 
stead and other ruined Monasteries (a great merit even in the 
eyes of the norman writers of church history) but was the 
original founder of Crowland; and that the part of the 
ancient possessions of Medeshamstead which was left after 
appropriations to Burgh and to Thorney, and probably to 
Peijkirk, was devoted to the maintenance of Crowland. The 
reputation of the bishop Ethelwold as a builder of Monasteries 
in places where there never was a Church before was not con- 
sulted by Ingulfus. 

As to provisions for the monks of Peykirk when their 
house was built we find in Patrick's book (p. 344) that an 
addition was made thereto by a Charter of king Edmund 
(king Ethelred's eldest son) : — Edmund's reign was so short 
that this subsidiary grant must have been made some time 
between St George's day and St Andrew's in the year 1016. 

We collect also that the suit for the Abbey of Peykirk 
was begun after the year 1016, the year of King Edmund's 
grant, — What Edmund gave to the church of Peykirk was 
a little piece of land at Walton (three or four miles from 
Burgh). 

The Manor in which the first house at Peykirk stood was 
North-Burgh, (and Wulfgatus after he was dispossessed built 
another in the same Manor,) and, 

As it was under Elfric that Medeshamstead, (or Girvum, as 
it was called in king Ethelred's time) was surrounded with its 
wall and so acquired the name of Burgh, — and as the Abbey 
called Peykirk stood in North-Burgh, we see that the wall to 
which Burgh owes its name was built before or whilst the 
Suit was pending. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 93 



CHAPTEE XVIII. 

A SHORT NOTICE OF THE ABBOT BRITHMER (ANOTHER NAME 
FOR ELFWINUS),— ELFWINUS AND EGELRIC AS BISHOPS OF 
DURHAM. 

We have disposed of the person who in the Crowland History 
is called the elder Egelric ; — The next Abbot after Godrie 
(after January lOlf ) was Elfwinus the bishop of London — 
(he who was the Queen's chaplain and the tutor of Ethelred's 
children and was sent into Normandy with them and Elfric and 
the Queen in 1013 ;) — He was made Abbot of Crowland and 
Bishop of Durham in 1020 in place of Bishop Edmund. The 
Abbot Elfwinus was as has been said, the Brithmer of the 
Ingulfus. 

Further mention of the Abbots Godrie and Elfwinus 
must be postponed for the present ; — suffice it to repeat in 
this Chapter that Elfwinus gave place to Egelric at Crowland 
in the year 1042, in which year he (Elfwinus) seems to have 
returned if he did not return in the time of King Canutus, 
to Winchester. 

It has been said in Chapter IX that almost all the writers 
of our History in the early norman times mention Egelric's 
visit to Durham in 1020. 

If the material 'particulars in that account be not absolutely 



94 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

false there is a great want of truth in it. It was written 
by order of the authorities at Canterbury and was copied by 
later Historians, but if we had the testimony of faithful 
ministers between those times and the present we should 
know that though Elfwinus was not one of the Monks of 
Burgh Elfric made him at the Queen's request an Abbot of 
Crowland on Godric's death, and also a Bishop of Durham, 
in place of the monk Edmund who was probably not dead but 
no longer competent. It is doubtful whether Elfwinus went to 
Durham with Egelrie or whether Egelrie went alone, — possibly 
as Elfwinus took the 'place of the abbot Edmund of Crowland, 
he stayed at Crowland. 

And now again our subject will be Egelrie the Abbot of 
Crowland, — the Egelrie whom we call the Historian, and who 
succeeded Elfwinus as Abbot and as Bishop of Durham in 
1042. 

We find, in Elfric's Chronicle that in the year 1041 the 
Prince Edward, the surviving son of Ethelred and Emma 
returned after a long exile from abroad and took up his 
abode at the Court of king Hardicanutus (his half-brother). 

It seems that the place of Edward's retreat was a secret ; 
In Wulstan's chronicle it is said that he returned from 
Wales, — As Hardicanutus who sent for him waited a few 
months "before he sent he seems to have listened sometimes to 
Earl Godwin and sometimes to Elfric — who, as far as we 
know, was never entirely forgiven for the offence at Wor- 
cester. 

In the year 1042 (according to our reckoning) Elfric 
desired to transfer the Archbishoprick of York to Egelrie ; — 
This we know from the following passage in his Chronicle : — 

"Her man hadode iEgelric bisceop to Eoferwic on HI id. 
Januarii " — [11th January 104^]. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 95 

But it seems the Canons of York refused to receive him as 
their Archbishop. 

We may make two or three extracts on this subject, and 
first, from Dr. Patrick (p. 256). 

"It was in 1042 (says Brompton) that Egelric was made 
Bishop of Durham, and he was lovingly received there both by 
the monks and the people" 

This means that Egelric the missionary or pattern-monk 
sent to Durham in 1020 visited the Monastery at Durham 
again as soon as he was appointed to the Bishoprick, and 
that the visitor was remembered and made welcome. (We 
have mentioned elsewhere that he held this Bishoprick until 
the year 1056, — that for the first six years of that time he 
held it with the Abbey of Crowland and that at the end of 
his Bishoprick he was succeeded therein by his brother 
Egelwinus, another of the Monks of Burgh.) 

Patrick continues thus, — " Brompton places Egelric's re- 
signation of the Bishoprick in 1057, — this was the year in 
which Leofricus was made Abbot of Burgh, and so says the 
Durham History ; Hugo says Egelric was Bishop of Durham 
twelve years." 

(That is — Hugo says Egelric was made Bishop in 1042 
and was Bishop till 1054.) 

But in this Hugo who probably followed some tradition, was 
inexact, and (though Patrick mentions the names of other 
writers who differ as to the time of this resignation) he 
observes that according to the Chronicle of Melrose it was in 
1056 ; and therein that Chronicle agrees with the Abbot De 
Caux (an excellent authority in this respect). 

According to De Caux Egelric was the bishop of Durham 
till 1056. His words are to this effect : " On Thursday, the 
1st August (1056) the monk Egelric who was Bishop of 
Durham abandoned his Bishoprick of his own will and re- 



96 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

turned to the monks of Burgh of whom he had formerly 
been one ; and Egelwinus his brother, a monk of the same 
monastery, was consecrated bishop in his stead."* 

This means that on that 1st of August Egelric returned 
from Crowland, (not that he left Durham on that day), and 
renewed his obedience to the Abbot of Burgh ; — the change 
of residence from Crowland to Burgh, — the resignation of the 
bishoprick in Egelwin's favour, — and the taking new oaths 
of obedience were all the business of one day. 

Connected with this part of Egelric's history Gunton 
(p. 16) copies as follows from his principal authority the 
Book which he calls Walter of Whittlesea : — 

"In the time of the Abbot Leofricus one Egelricus a 
Monk of Burgh was made Archbishop of York, but the 
Canons there, envying that a Monk should be set over them 
(though but lately it had been so) refused to receive him 
wherefore he was made Bishop of Durham. 

" Whilst he was Bishop there he gathered great store of 
wealth, yet not to himself but that he might be rich in good 
works ; amongst which there is one that continues his memory 
to this very day, — the bank from Deeping to Spalding. For 
in those days the passage being very difficult by reason of 
Woods and deep Marshes he raised that Causeway for the 
benefit of Travellers which for many years after was called 
by his name, Egelric-Road, though now it be known only by 
the name of Deeping Bank. 

" But some affirm that Egelricus found his wealth ■ — for, 
intending to build a Church at Chester upon the Street, in 
laying the foundation thereof he chanced to light upon a 

* MLVI. Quint a ferid, kal. Augusti — Monachus /actus est Dunelmensis 
episcopus Egelricus : Episcopatu, sponte, relicto ad Monasterium suum de 
Bur go ubi quondam Monachus erat remeavit ; — Agelwino fratre suo et 
Monacho ejusdem Monasterii in locum suum consecrato. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 97 

great mass of treasure wherewith he finished that work 
and many others. — Such a new-found treasure might be an 
addition to what he had before (which surely was not small, 
else he would scarce have undertaken to build Churches). 

" When Egelricus had held his Bishoprick of Durham long 
enough to weary himself with public employments he re- 
turned to his Monastery of Peterburgh, having resigned his 
Bishoprick to his Brother Egelwinus." 

On which Story Patrick comments (in p. 256) — 

"Egelric was made Bishop of Durham in 1042, — This 
John Brompton informs us and also that he resigned the 
Bishoprick and returned to Burgh in 1057. And this agrees 
with Symeon Bunelmensis (who should best know) who saith 
after he had been Bishop fifteen years he returned to his 
Monastery whither he had sent his Gold and Silver and other 
goods of the Church of Durham before. 

" The Gold and Silver, he acknowledges, was found as he 
was digging very deep to lay the foundation of a Church of 
Stone in honour of St. Cuthbert which was before of Wood ; 
but he saith it had been formerly hidden there by the Church 
of Durham because of the Covetousness and Tyranny of 
Sephelmus ; and, therefore, though he did good Works with 
this money (which he immediately sent away to Burgh, 
intending to follow it himself), making Highways with Wood 
and Stone in the fenny Countries, building Churches, and 
other things yet in the Keign of the Conqueror he was 
accused for carrying away this Treasure which he would not 
restore ; and being brought up to London," &c. 

" And Hugo (who calls Egelric Eilricus) says that the 
Koad he made in the Fens for Travellers was called Elrich- 
roadr 

Thus far our authors Be Caux and Brompton, and Gunton 
and Patrick. 



98 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

It is observable that the passage just quoted from Hugo has 
found its way into the Ingulf us ; — The whole story was 
written in the Interests of the Church of Canterbury, — it is 
full of falsehoods and an account of an incident in Egelric's 
life which ought to be corrected. 

All the norman Writers may not have known that in 
Egelric's time it was not the custom for bishops to reside 
within their Sees. I do not suppose that, except when 
Egelric was sent to Durham in 1020 on a special errand, 
and except the usual visitations (his periodical journeys) to 
the few Churches and Monasteries within the Diocese when 
he wa,s the Bishop, he ever spent a day in that part of the 
Kingdom. 






ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 99 



CHAPTEE XIX. 

EGELKIC AS A BISHOP OF DURHAM CONTINUED. — ELEICH 
ROAD. 

Amongst the inaccuracies in Guntons Book with Patrick's 
additions and in the authors quoted therein, we may point 
to the story that Egelrie, being a Bishop of Durham, founded 
a Church to St. Cuthbert. 

Any bishop of Durham if he were rich might build a 
church to St. Cuthbert. It seems that the principal Church 
in the Diocese was a wooden shed at Chester on the Street, 
till a few years before Elfwinus was made the Bishop. (Chester 
on the Street is about six miles- north of Durham on the 
roman road leading from Durham to Newcastle.) 

Egelrie, as Gunton observes, unless he were rich would 
hardly begin to build a Church. We are told that in the 
ground under the Church so rebuilt heaps of money were 
found which had been hidden by the monks of that wooden 
Church because Sejphelmus was covetous and a tyrant. 

Now I am persuaded that when a Tale of any kind is to be 
told it is better it should be told truly. 

Egelrie though a Bishop was but a poor Monk and had 
little or nothing to do with the building of Churches, con- 
sequently he found no Treasures in the prosecution of such a 

Work L.ofC. 

H 2 



100 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

Sephelmus is one of the names which were bestowed upon 
Elfric. 

It is said that Egelric when he found the money sent 
it before him to Burgh. He returned to Burgh in 1056, and 
from Croivland, not from Durham. 

But as to the disposition of these fabulous Treasures. 

It is said they were spent in the making a Highway from 
Crowland to Beeping. Can there be better Evidence of the 
spotless Character of Egelric than this ? The Normans were 
reduced to invent an improbable story in order to charge 
him with a Crime, — with the appropriation to secular Uses of 
money which belonged to a Church. 

This was an invention as it seems of one Turgot, a norman 
Prior of the Monks of Durham, and was adopted by subse- 
quent Writers of the Church of Canterbury, by Simeon of 
Durham amongst the rest, which Simeon most likely added 
other falsehoods to the History which Turgot wrote. 

If we were to believe any part of this story of a sacrilege 
we must suppose that after they had been turned into 
Benedictines and after the year 1 023 (in which year Elfric 
became their Archbishop) the Clergy of Durham hid a pot 
of money in the Earth out of the way of this greedy and 
tyrannical Archbishop; and that they let it remain there 
after his death and until Egelric when he had taken down 
the old Church and was laying the foundations of another, 
found it. 

This part of the story is manifestly false — neither can 
what is said of the disposition of the hidden Treasure be true ; 
Egelric had nothing to do with the making Highways. 

Before we attempt to prove this, let us call to mind the con- 
nection between Elfric and the Monks of Durham and refer 
again to Gunton as to certain events of those Times. 

The Editors of the Monasticon have observed of the Arch- 






ON THE HISTORY OF C ROWLAND ABBEY. 101 

bishop Wulstan, Elfric's predecessor, that he was made 
Archbishop in the same year as King Ethelred ordered the 
Massacre of the Danes in this Kingdom, the year 1002. 
(Elduli'us, the preceding Archbishop, died in the summer of 
1002.) 

Wulstan though he was not himself a Monk seems to 
have had a great regard for Elfric, and he could have had 
no great dislike of Monks in general if it be true that he 
desired the clergy of Durham should become Monks when 
Elfwinus was made the Bishop ; against his will or without 
his consent Elfric would not have sent the Benedictine 
Egelric to Durham as a pattern for the intended Converts. 

About a quarter of a mile from the Walls of the Monastery 
at Burgh there is a Farm-house called the Low which will 
be mentioned again in a subsequent Chapter, and within two 
minutes' walk of that Farm-house there is the head or begin- 
ning of a Bank, a raised Causeway, which runs in a straight 
direction towards the East : It is ancient but still entire as far 
as the House called the Bog and Doublet, about eight miles from 
Burgh ; it leads to Whittlesea and towards Wisbech and Ely. 

It cannot be doubted that this Causeway is a part of the 
Koad which Gunton mentions in his Extract from one of his 
Copies of Ingulfus in these words : — 

" The Highway then into Holland was through the same 
Church" (Grave) "Yard." 

There may have been in the time of Ingulfus a raised 
Causeway of this description between Deeping and Spalding 
for he mentions a norman lord of the name of Richard de 
Rule who improved his Estates in that Neighbourhood by 
expensive works of a useful nature ; but we have no reason 
to attribute such a work to Egelric or to believe that he had 
any particular inducement for the making a road to Deeping, 
or any sufficient means. 



102 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

We ought to believe that the road called Elrich Road 
was made by Elfric, and that it is the Road of which 
Gunton speaks as the Highway towards Holland. 

We see that in Gunton s Time this Road had lost its 
proper name, for then, I suppose, as now, it was called by 
no other name than the common name, — the Bank. 

I suppose that by means of this raised Bank the town of 
Burgh was made accessible to Travellers from the East, 
either on horseback or on foot and in times of the highest 
floods ; and that the Treasure which was expended in its for- 
mation was not found in the earth but in the Queen's 
abundant favour towards Elfric, and in her influence with 
her husbands Ethelred and Canutus. 

Elfric's services were great as was his influence with her 
during the lives of both her husbands, and at that time 
Labourers were Slaves. 

This Bank was to be useful to Travellers, and most likely 
the frequent journeys of Canutus from Knuston, (his usual 
place of abode,) to Ely were broken in this way. He, 
sometimes with and sometimes without the Queen, would go 
to Burgh in a boat, and when they left the Abbey the 
first few miles of their onward journey would be upon this 
Bank, on foot or on horseback or in one of the carriages which 
were in use in those times. 

It was no doubt called Elrich-Road as Hugo says, and 
as the Compilers of the Crowland History also say, — but it was 
so called after Elfric (Elfrich) not after Egelric (Egelrich). 

This mention of the Bank recalls a scene of my youth. 

Till about fifty years ago the Magistrates for the hundreds 
of Nassaburgh (the Soke or Liberty of Burgh) represented as 
Justices the Abbots of Burgh, and ordinary Thefts com- 
mitted within the Liberty were still sometimes punished with 
death as in the times of the Abbots. 



ON THE HISTOEY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 103 

The Gallows used to stand near the mill in Mill-Field, a 
little beyond St. Marls s Church;- — The Mill was called 
Gallows Mill, and I think (but am not sure,) that I remember 
the gallows before it was removed from that spot; it was 
removed about the beginning of the present century to another 
a little north of the before-mentioned Causeway or Bank, and 
on execution days boys were taken or sent to witness the 
ceremonies. 

From that convenient and safe eminence — the Bank — I was a 
spectator of those executions I think, twice. There was an 
Execution there about 1814 and I believe it was the last, 
but that was five or six years after I had left the Town. 



104 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 



CHAPTEK XX. 

WHEEE DID EGELRIC WRITE ? — THE ABBOT DE CAUX OF 
BURGH ; AND THE MONK PYTCHLEY. — PYTCHLEY's EPITAPH. 

We have seen that Egelric returned to Burgh on the 1st 
August 1056 soon after the termination of the Eeign of 
the Abbot Kinsinus. 

As long as Egelric continued to live amongst the Monks of 
Crowland he retained his Bishoprick though he was no longer 
their Abbot. 

In 1055 (after the death of Earl Godwin) Kinsinus, who 
claimed to be and was, for the time, the Allot of Burgh, (and 
the Abbot of Burgh was the Archbishop) went to Kome for 
his Pall ; and the same year, before or soon after his return 
Erwinus, the Prior, who had been elected Abbot it may be 
before the time of Elfric's death notwithstanding the intrusion 
of Kinsinus, gave place as Abbot to Leofrieus. Leofricus 
(with the consent of the King and of Erwinus, as it is said) 
was unanimously chosen for Abbot. This event seems to be 
an answer to the natural question — 

Why did Egelric, and why in 1056, resign the Bishoprick 
of Durham f 

There was an end of Kinsinus as an Abbot. 

It may be that as Egelric retained a Bishoprick after he 
resigned an Abbey, the Cares of a Bishop were then more 
onerous than the Duties of an Abbot. 

The Nolo episcopari might then be a real sentiment, an 
honest mistrust, a genuine sense of the weight of the charge, 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 105 

and a reluctance to undertake an office which included both 
a right and a duty to command. 

But, in this case, Egelric after he returned to Burgh was not 
long a free and happy man. He was released from the business 
of the diocese of Durham, but we find he was made in the be- 
ginning of the year 105J, a Bishop of Selsey (Chichester). This 
Bishoprick he would exercise at Burgh, released from the fac- 
tions and discontent which must have perplexed him as a 
monk of Burgh at Crowland. It seems it was now that he 
found time to write history ; an employment which (resting 
at intervals) is not inconsistent with bodily health and peace 
of mind. 

When Egelric left Crowland (JElfrie his patron and friend 
had been removed by death some years before), Kinsinus had 
ceased to govern at Burgh though probably he had not 
left the place. Egelric would find many old friends there, 
and amongst them his brother Ugelwinus, his Successor in 
the See of Durham ; and this Monk of Burgh also would 
administer the Bishoprick at Burgh. 

I think it must have been after Egelric's return from 
Crowland that he wrote those particulars of Crowland some 
of which are now parts of the Ingulfus ; neither do I doubt 
that they were written in english, for though he could write 
in latin, and latin in verse, it seems that neither Wulstan, (the 
Bishop of Worcester in King Edward's time,) nor Godric 
the Abbot of Burgh (the Godricus Albus of a later day) nor, 
except JElfrie and he rarely, any of the other writers of the 
Church of Burgh subsequent to the Restoration in Edgar's 
time wrote in latin till after 1066, and Elfric himself com- 
monly wrote in english. 

If Ingulfus translated from english into latin any passages 
in the Ingulfus which Egelric wrote, as I suppose he did, 
he would be sure to choose language consistent with his own 
sentiments towards Burgh. 



106 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

When Be Canx wrote his Chronicle, it was still the law at 
Canterbury that the Archbishops of York were to take a 
subordinate place. The name of the Archbishop Elfric as an 
Abbot of Burgh, and that the Egelric who was made a 
Bishop of Durham in his time was one of his Monks and 
Leofwin a Bishop of Worcester another were inconvenient facts 
which were to be blotted out of our History. 

It was, I suppose, the plain duty of Be Caux to conform to 
such laws, and keep his Superiors' secrets, but he seems to 
have thought that if he complied to the letter the prohibition 
ought to end, and that there was nothing to forbid a Record 
of the return of Egelric the bishop of Burham to Burgh. 

This Kecord we have in Chapter XVIII. in the words of his 
Chronicle : He also calls Elfwinus, who was the Bishop of 
London in 1013 Bishop of Burham in that year, as he after- 
wards was. 

Matters which serve to connect particulars of our History 
one with another. 



Kinsinus went to Borne for confirmation in the Archbishop- 
rick in 1055, — and it seems that in 1056 (after his return) 
he was the proper person to receive Egelric's Resignation, — to 
appoint aud to consecrate Egelwinus, — and to receive also 
renewed vows from Egelric as one of the fraternity at Burgh 
after his absence for many years at Crowland. 

(It is probable that Egelwinus was considerably younger 
than Egelric.) 

There was this reason why Be Caux's account of Egelric's 
return to Burgh is so minute and precise. 

Be Caux as an Abbot was subjected to the Canterbury 
Archbishops : He was bound by oaths to defend the claims of 
that Church ; It was, in some sort, his duty to follow in the 
beaten track, and, in anything he might write, to misrepre- 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 107 

sent the history of his own Abbey ; — but he was a man of 
a, free spirit ; — he felt and fretted under the shackles which 
were intended to bind him, and he resolved in one case, at 
least, to do his Master right little service. He left an unmis- 
takable account of Egelric's return from Crowland to Burgh. 

Patrick, (who reckons that it was in 1057 that Erwinus 
resigned the Abbey and Leofric was elected to succeed him,) 
endeavoured to understand and to correct the account in 
Grunton, but he also seems to be wrong. 

Egelwinus (the next Bishop of Durham) continued to reside 
at Burgh with his Brother Egelric — (the appointment to the 
Bishoprick made no change in his place of residence), — After 
the Normans came they were both implicated in the so-called 
rebellion of Hereward in the fens. Egelwinus was taken in 
arms, and they were both imprisoned till they died ; but these 
are matters to mention in another part of my Work. 

The following is the account in Elfric s Chronicle con- 
tinued, of the substitution of Egelwinus as a Bishop for Egelric. 

" ML VI. Her for let Mgelric bisceop his bisceoprice set 
Dunholm, and ferde to Burh to See Petres mynstre ; and his 
brother ^Egelwine feng thserto." 

[Egelric's Bishoprick did not regularly expire in 1056.] 

The same Continuation of the Chronicle after Elfric men- 
tions that Kinsinus the archbishop of York obtained his robes 
from pope Victor in 1055 ; and that he died the 21st of 
December 1059 and was buried at Burgh ; We suppose that 
after Elfric's death he continued to reside though not to rule at 
Burgh until the end of the year 1059. 

In page 250 of Patrick's Gunton Patrick says, after noticing 
the mention of Elsinus (Elfric) Envinus and Leofricus by 
Ingulfus, and of Kenulfus and Kinsinus by De Caux, " We 
have gained this piece of knowledge from John Abbot " (De 
Caux), " that Elsinus was a monk of Burgh, and chosen 
to be abbot (saith Hugo) by the unanimous consent. of the 



108 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

whole Congregation whom lie governed 50 years ; By which 
account Kinsinus must either never have been Abbot here, 
or but for a few days or months." 

But though with the exception of this passage Patrick 
does not, nor does any other Historian than Be Gaux name 
Kinsinus as an Abbot of Burgh, we mav see both in Gunton 
and in Patrick that he was entitled to a place in the list of 
Abbots, — and how, — 

" Elsinus " (says Gunton p. 15) " who was Abbot 50 years, 
died in 1055 and was succeeded by Erwinus." 

This was clearly a mistake ; Elfric was Elsinus, the Abbot 
for 50 years, and he died in 1051 : and we must understand 
from Patrick's context and from the contradictions in Be Gaux 
that the Abbot from 1051 to 1055 was Kinsinus. 

In p. 254 Patrick quotes Be Gaux in the following words : — 
" MLV. Elsinus Abbas Burgi obiit — successit Arewinus" — and 
" MLVII. Arewinus Abbas Burgi demisit se de Abbatid — Cui 
successit Eeofricus." (In these passages De Caux forgets Kin- 
sinus.) 

What I suspect is, that G-unton did not in this case trust 
his principal authority Walter of Whittlesea but listened 
rather, to another writer whom he calls Henry of Pytchley 
and was misled; and that otherwise we should have had a 
clearer account of Erwinus. Gunton reckoned that Leofric 
began to reign in 1063. 

" Erwinus " (says Gunton), " after eight years' continuance 
therein, surrendered the Government of his Abbey." 

Pytchley was a Monk of this Church of Burgh who wrote 
History. — I suppose the Book which he wrote is now lost, 
and that Gunton, (who writes the name Pightesley and gives us 
several Extracts from it) read therein something to this effect : — 

" A few years before the Normans came we had a very old 
Abbot who before he died had ceased to reside with us except at 
intervals, and was at last paralyzed and incompetent. Be died 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 109 

in January 1051. And about three years before his death the 
Monks chose the prior Erwinus for their Ruler in his stead, and 
Erwinus was our Abbot eight years, and resigned" &c. 

" Patrick comments on what Gunton says to this effect : 

" Arewinus, vir (says Hugo) mirse sanctitatis et simplicita- 
tis, was chosen by the whole Company. He continued in 
this dignity a far less time than Mr. Gunton mentions. He 
could not possibly be Abbot here eight years for Elsinus died 
as has been shown in 1055. He resigned therefore after he 
had been Abbot two years," &c. " Hugo plainly says that he 
afterwards lived happily for eight years in retirement" 

Gunton, though he states several particulars on Pytchley's 
authority, does not seem to have known anything of that 
Writer. 

We have his copy of an Inscription over Pytchley's Grave 
which was in the North Transept, — but it ought I think to 
be read 



Henricus hie natus Pightesle, quiescit humatus, 
Acta prioratus Claustri, rexit monachatus ; 
Sit prece salvatus Petri, cceloque locatus. 

Gunton writes Pytchley's christian name William (as we 
spell William now), — and I suppose that when he wrote time 
had made the words Henricus hie natus look like Hie William 
natus and the whole of the epitaph nearly illegible. 

Gunton certainly made a mistake in his copy,* which is in 

the following words (p. 102) — 

Hie William natus Pightesle quiescit humatus 
Facta prioratus claustro rexit monachatus ; 
Sit prece salvatus Petri, cceloque locatus. 

It was his Henry Pytchley and not William Pytchley who 
was set over the Prior of the Church. 

* We may mention another such an error in Gunton. He takes the Hie 
jacet of the Prior Joannes de Trikingham (in p. 95) for that of Jornandes de 
Tringham. - [" Trickingham," 



110 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

I suppose Pytchley was a midland-english or mercian 
gentleman, one of those who were dispossessed in the time of 
the Abbot Toroldus (in 1086) ; possibly he temporised (as was 
not uncommon), surrendered his Manor of Pytchley to the 
Abbot on terms, and went quietly into the Monastery. 

Gunton and Patrick say (pp. 20 and 268) that in 1103 the 
Abbot Matthias (the next norman abbot after Toroldus) was 
in possession of the manor of Pytchley and leased it to his 
Brother Geoffrey Riddel the Chief Justice. 

It seems that Pytchley was sworn in as a Monk by the 
name of Henry and was afterwards put into an invidious 
Office, — set to control the Prior. 

This looks like an insult ; fancy Pytchley set to control 
Terricus one of the followers of the Doctor Gislebertus. 

But it may be that Pytchley was the real prior in the eyes 
of the Monks, and Terricus (who was a creature of the Abbot 
Urnulfus) but a nominal prior, an obstructive piece of vanity 
in the Abbey. 

Pytchley as we reckon, was in the Abbey at the same time 
as the Historian Hugo ; Hugo knew little of the english 
tongue and Pytchley nothing oifrench. , 

In pp. 28, 48 and 49 Gunton quotes Pytchley again, but I 
suppose Pytchley means there some writer who translated into 
latin what history Pytchley had written, and continued it. 

He {Pytchley) knew, though Gunton did not understand him, 
that the Abbot Eldulfus was Abbot of Burgh 31 years ; (that 



" Trickingham" says G-unton (perhaps after Vossius, p. 476), " was a 
Monk of Burgh who lived and wrote annals from 626 down to his own 
time, 1270." 

Gunton had a copy of Trikingham's Chronicle and quotes from it in 
p. 149, and it seems that there is, or was a copy in the Archbishop's Library 
at Lambeth, and that it passes for the Chronicle of one Helias de Trih- 
ingham. 

{Gunton and Patrick, pp. 7, 202, 313, 325.) 



ON THE HISTORY OF CEOWLAND ABBEY. Ill 

is to say, until Elfric came to be Abbot). Eldulfus did not 
cease to be Abbot (though all our historians reckon he did) 
when he was made Archbishop of York on the death of 
Oswald the preceding Archbishop, nor did he leave the Abbey. 

There is no reason to doubt that Kinsinus was appointed to 
take the command at Burgh in Elfric's lifetime and was forced 
upon the Monks by men in power at Court ; or to doubt that the 
Monks desired to be governed by somebody else. If Kinsinus 
had the Abbot's Chair he was neither the canonical Abbot 
before Elfric's death nor after for he was not duly elected ; 
but it seems that he was the Abbot in name until 1055, 
and that he ruled or attempted to rule over a discontented 
family. After Elfric's death the Monks had the right to 
choose another Abbot, and if Erwinus was in any sense their 
Abbot for eight years it is likely that they withstood the ap- 
pointment of an intruder in Elfric s lifetime, and elected him. 

I imagine these men would have preferred the princely 
Monk Leofrie, but that Leofric would point to his senior 
Erwinus as a more proper choice. We are told that Erwinus 
did not covet the honour, — (How odd that his name should be 
Erwinus !) 

Kinsinus took Elfric's place as the Archbishop of York 
but not, according to our chronicles, till after his death, and it 
was perhaps rather as an Archbishop than as an Abbot that 
he was ever reckoned in the list of the Abbots of Burgh. 

Earl Godwin died on Easter-Monday 1053, and Earl 
Siward two years afterwards. After Siward's death and five 
years after Elfric's death Kinsinus did as Elfric had done, he 
went to Kome for the Pope's blessing and for his robes ; but 
neither before nor after that Journey was he confirmed in 
the possession of the Abbey. If he expected he should be 
(and perhaps he did) his errand was so far fruitless. The 
Monks had another Abbot. 



112 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 



CHAPTER XXI. 

THE ABBOT OSKETULTJS (A PHANTOM) AND OTHER ABBOTS 
OF CROWLAND. — THE ABBOT OSCHITELLUS AND OTHER 
ABBOTS OF ELY WHO WERE BISHOPS OF WORCESTER. — 
THE HISTORIAN THOMAS OF ELY. 

In the Table of the Abbots of Crowland collected from the 
printed Ingulfus in Chapter YI we have, before Wulfgatus 
and after Egelric, first an Abbot Oshetulus ; next Godrie ; 
and after Godrie, Brithmer. 

Oshetulus or Oschitellus was a name given to the Leofwin 
whom we mention as a Sacrist of Burgh and a Bishop of 
Worcester, and who was made an Abbot of Ely ; we have 
seen also that Elsinus, another Abbot of Ely, was a name 
given to Elfric in the list of the Abbots of Burgh. 

Wharton seems to have been unable to understand the 
strange complexity and contradictions in the lists of the 
Archbishops of York aud Bishops of Worcester in Elfric's time. 
— He was persuaded by what he read that the confusion was 
the effect of ambition, and was attributable to the whims or 
animosities of -' that Archbishop Elfric of YorJc who had been 
a prior of Winchester" (our Abbot of Burgh). 

And he really seems to have made this mistake for want of 
knowing that Leofwin and Leofric were Elfric s Sacrist and his 
Prior, otherwise he would have given us a more correct ac- 
count of the Bishops of Worcester in Elfric's time. His 



ON THE HISTORY OF CKOWLAND ABBEY. 113 

expressed opinion is that Elfric had too much to do with 
politics in the Reigns of the two sons of Canutus ; — In their 
Reigns the times certainly were out of joint. 

In this opinion Wharton was mistaken,— Elfric thought it 
his duty to serve, and he made it the business of his life to 
defend Ethelred's Widow and Children if it were possible 
'against Earl Godwin and against the Banes ; this part of 
our History has not been rightly understood. 

The account of the Monastery of Ely written in the later 
norman times by an Historian called Eliensis or Thomas of 
Ely, and which Wharton published in the Anglia Sacra is a 
valuable contribution to our Church History. 

It seems to have been written partly from materials 
common to Thomas and to the norman Historians of Crow- 
land and of Burgh, and partly from other and better sources, 
but, with all his helps, it is obvious* that he had not a perfect 
knowledge of the subject. 

Bentham a recent Historian of Ely says of the Abbot 
Elsinus that he died in 1016. It will be seen that it could 
hardly be so for reasons which will be mentioned ; Canutus 
did not marry Ethelred's widow till 1017. Wharton (Angl. 
Sac. I. 608) places the death of Elsinus in 1019; when 
according to norman History he was succeeded by Oschitellus, 
but he lived to offend Canutus and lost his abbey in his 
lifetime. 

Unlike the Oshetulus of Crowland the Oschitellus of Ely 
was not an unreal person ; he was Leofwin a Sacrist of Burgh 
as has been said, but it is not impossible that he was an 
Abbot of Crowland for a short time before 1020, (after 
Godric and before Elfwinus). 

Leofric a Son of the Earl of Mercia and whom Elfric names 
as one of his Scholars, (and he was afterwards a Monk a 
Prior and an Allot of Burgh,) was also an Abbot of Ely. 

I 



114 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

In 1118 or 1119 the Abbot Elsinus of Ely (the real Elsinus) 
was deposed, and though the Monks of Ely were at liberty to 
choose another Abbot from among themselves the Sacrist 
Leofwin was the next Abbot, — he was Abbot till 1020, and 
then gave place to the mercian Earl's son, Leofric : — Of these 
officers of the Church of Burgh and Abbots of Ely something 
remains to be said. 

Eliensis does not say a great deal of the Abbots of Ely 
who were bishops of Worcester after the death of Archbishop 
Wulstan. The reason may be that when he wrote a great 
change had taken place in the status of a Bishop. Until 
1066 the care of a Diocese seems to have been fre- 
quently one of the offices of an Abbot; — after that time 
a bishop was a prince too great to live in a Cloister, and 
hesides, the History which Eliensis wrote was but a History 
of the Church of Ely and not of the Bishops of Worcester. 

(It seems from a passage therein that the writer was 
educated in Flanders, and probably we know more of the 
Abbots Elsinus, Leofwin and Leofrie than he did.) 

Brihtey, afterwards a Bishop of Worcester, was a Nephew 
of Archbishop Wulstan, and on the death of Wulstan in 
April 1023 and when his Archbishoprick of York fell to 
Elfric it is likely that Wulstan's Bishoprick of Worcester 
would have been given to Brihtey if he had been of an age 
to take it/but I suppose he was not until 1033, and that until 
he was it was again given to Leofwin. 

After the death of Canutus in 1035 Elfric was dispossessed 
of his authority as an Archbishop, and some time after- 
wards of his authority in his Alley also. — It is nowhere said 
that Leofwin was deprived of his Bishoprick of Worcester and 
we do not suppose that when in 1033 he gave place to 
Brihtey in that Bishoprick he gave place against his will. 

To return to the Historian Thomas of Ely, — He says, first, 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 115 

that the successor of Elsinus died before he took the Abbot's 
chair or soon afterwards. He then says that the next Abbot 
after Elsinus was Leofivin. 

We read elsewhere that the Abbot Leofivin of Ely who 
took the place of the Abbot Elsinus was distasteful to the 
Monks there, — (he would be likely to be too strict a Bene- 
dictine ;) — he was expel ledj and was in Kome in October 
1022 with the Archbishop Mthelnotus, (not Egelredus, as 
Thomas the Ely historian says). 

In certain anonymous Annals of Worcester which Wharton 
published (1 Angl. Sac. 469) it is said that in 1023 Arch- 
bishop Wulstan was succeeded in his Bishoprick of Worcester 
by one Leoferbius ; Wharton proposes that by this name 
Leoferbius we should understand Leofsius an Abbot of 
TJiorney, and says that this Abbot of Thorney after a bishoprick 
of 11 years was succeeded therein by Bishop Brihtey. 

If what is said by the Historians of Ely, by Wharton and 
by Hugo be near the truth Leofwin who was Bishop of 
Worcester twice, was also Abbot of Ely twice ; first as has 
been said, about the year 1018 or 1019, and again, after 
he returned from Kome in 1022. 

The Archbishop Wulstan died before the Abbey of Burgh 
was again inhabited and was buried in the Monastery at 
Ely ; it is said, and it may be true, that he fell sick there 
whilst he was travelling (m the course of his Visitations as 
we are to suppose) but it is possible that his business at 
Ely at that time was to visit not the Clergy but his kindred 
and friends. 

The name of Brightey which is still common amongst the 
East Anglians of our day and is seldom heard of elsewhere, 
suggests that this Brihtey who was at different times both the 
successor and a predecessor of Leofivin in the Bishoprick of 
Worcester was a Monk of the Church of Ely. 

I 2 



116 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND, 

Something may be said here as to the time of Leo/wins 
death. The Worcester Calendar in the Harleian Library 
commemorates the days of the death of two Leofwins, 
the one Brother Leofwin, on the 13th February ; and the 
other Leofwin Sacrist and Monk, on the 9th of March. 
Ought we not to take this second Leofwin for the Leofwin of 
Burgh ? — In the Obituary of the Church of Ely (when that 
was compiled is not known) it is said that the day of the 
death of their Abbot Leofwin was the 26th of November ; 
whereas according to the Chronicle he died the 22nd of March 
104f, and according to Mr. Stubbs's Tables on the 23rd 
March 1046. 

Leofric (another of Elfric's Priors) who for a short time 
governed the Monks at Ely as their Abbot in 1022 and 1023, 
was their Abbot again for a second time after the date men- 
tioned in the Ely Obituary the 26th November (1044 ?). 

Perhaps by the Ely Kecord we may understand not that 
Leofwin died but that again, for a second time, he was dis- 
placed or resigned the Abbey on the 26th November 1044 ; — 
such a fact would imply what a passage in Hugo asserts, 
or at least implies, namely that the Abbots of Ely were 
removable at the will of the Abbots of Burgh. 

The events which are ascertainable show that in 1042 
Egelric the Successor of Elfwinus in the Bishoprick of 
Durham and in the Abbey of Crowland was the Abbot of 
Crowland from 1042 to 1048, and that he was neither re- 
called nor deposed but resigned the Abbey in 1048. The 
other Abbots Godric, Wulfgatus and Wulfketulus were none 
of them disturbed by the Abbots of Burgh. 

Although the form of the History which Egelric wrote is 
unknown it is obvious that this Abbot of Crowland did not 
write any part of what is said of Wulfketulus ; — he would 
have written it differently. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 117 

It might be supposed that Elfric was at one time an 
Abbot of Ely but it would be easy to show from certain 
passages in Hugo that he was not : the following Allots of 
Ely after Elsinus are subjects which we reserve. 

Leofwin— Abbot from 1017 to 1020. 

Leofric— from 1020 to 1023. 

Leofwin — again (after 1023). 



118 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 



CHAPTER XXII. 

THE SECOND PART. 



INGULFUS, AND HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY. 

Having endeavoured to understand that part of the Crowland 
History which as Ingulfus relates, he compiled from the 
Writings of Egelric, I propose now to enter upon the part of 
which Ingulfus seems to have been the original Writer. 

We must follow him, for he knew all we can know of the 
Abbots of Crowland from the time of Wulfgatus until he 
ceased to write. We have no reason to believe that there ever 
was any other History of the Abbey in the norman times, or 
to doubt that though he did not always, he might have told 
us the whole and the honest truth. 

It will be convenient to keep pretty close to his Narrative 
for the facts, and to introduce remarks upon material 
misstatements therein. 



I propose in this second part of what I have to say of 
Crowland and its Abbots to make certain Extracts from the 
autobiographical Chapters which are a principal part of the 
Ingulfus and a part which Ingulfus claims as his own, — " I 
myself am the Relator of the Events of my own times?' These 
are words which include all he says of himself. 



ON THE HISTOKY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 119 

We see in the preface to Mr. Riley's translation what 
was thought of the History in 1854. At that time the 
learned agreed in general that it w r as written in part, and the 
rest compiled, by Ingulfus, and that it contains a great deal 
of falsehood. But they did not at all agree either as to the 
parts which are spurious, — as to the author or authors of those 
spurious parts, — or as to the age or ages in which they were 
imported into the History. 

Mr. Riley s estimate of the vanity of Ingulfus does not 
seem to be objectionable. It is not for me to determine 
(though I also have an opinion) whether Hickes and others 
who say he was a knave are Calumniators or honest Critics 
to be commended for their plainness of speech, but it is clear 
that some of his Charters ought not to have been confirmed : 
Nor do I know whether they took into account or forgot, 
that his Abbey without charters was without revenues. 
The Laws which then prevailed seem to have exacted 
as an absolute necessity a written title to Abbey lands ; 
What Ingulfus did when he went to London again about his 
writings, (in 1085) he did probably by the counsel of 
Lanfranc. 

Understanding however, that Ingulfus was the son of a 
norman I will not hesitate to say what I think, — I rather 
adopt than quarrel with the opinion which Hickes enter- 
tained (subject to the above remark) but I believe that in 
the printed Ingulfus he has been made to say both more 
and less of his parentage and education than he really did ; 
and also that a few of the alterations which have been made 
in what he said of those matters were invented long after 
his death. 

The pen was certainly false which sent him to Oxford for 
his Education whilst Elfric was Abbot of Burgh. Mr. Riley 
thought it was false because it says that Ingulfus had at 



120 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

Oxford Aristotle and Cicero at his finger's Ends : Was it the 
same pen which gave him an english descent ? 

But these particulars may be false and yet the general 
tenor of what is said of the Historian himself be true. 

It is not so said in the History but it seems that Ingulfus 
was born in the year 1030. 

" I was born in England and of english parents, citizens 
of the beautiful city of London. I was taught letters in my 
more early years at Westminster, and was afterwards sent to 
Oxford where I became proficient," &c. ( If it he possible that 
Ingulfus did say all this, was it true f) 

The following particulars look very unlike falsehood : — 

" Growing older I grew ambitious ; — looked down upon the 
humble condition of my parents and left my home. 

" Whilst I was thinking more and more and from day to day 
of the palaces of kings and princes and longing to be dressed 
like a gentleman it happened that our present king, then 
the duke William of Normandy, came to London with many 
servants to see his cousin king Edward." (This was in the 
year 1051, the year of Elfric's death.) 

Ingulfus contrived to insinuate himself amongst those 
servants, and at last, he got to be one of them. 

" Pushing everywhere," he tells us he was ready to 
undertake anything, and happening to succeed in some 
of his petty undertakings he came to be known to and a 
favorite with the Duke. He sailed with him when he went 
back to Normandy and became his Amanuensis ; — He then 
relates that, to the envy of many of the duke's people, he 
managed the arrangements of the family at his own will, and 
humbled and exalted whom he would. 

In the course of this relation of his early life is the 
following confession :— i- 

" Urged onwards by the ardour common with young men 1 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 121 

got tired of my prosperous condition and dissatisfied with my 
present fortunes. I was always restless and ambitious and 
always seeking after something higher than I had. 

" About this time a pilgrimage to Jerusalem was pro- 
jected for the good of our souls and I was to go and others 
also of the duke's servants (some soldiers, and some clerks,) 
and with the Duke's generous assistance we prepared our- 
selves and went." (It seems that Ingulfus was first and fore- 
most in the enterprise.) 

Then follows an account of their route ; — they went by way of 
Mentz and through Germany to Constantinople ; and thence (as 
he says) through Lycia : Their journey back was by way of 
Brundusium and they visited Borne: The account of their 
return concludes thus, — 

" Out of 30 horsemen who left Normandy, all fat and well, 
scarcely 20 of us returned, — and those poor and exhausted, — 
worn to mere shadows, and on foot." 

It seems that Ingulfus and his companions separated as 
soon as they returned. They disappear and he disposed of 
himself in a way which makes it evident, I think, that 
Normandy was his real Home. Why else did he choose a 
norman Monastery ? He says he went into the Monastery of 
Fontanelle in that province ; — became a Monk there ; — and 
some years afterwards was made the Prior. 

Mr. Wright believes that this Biography of Ingulfus was 
not written by Ingulfus himself; and he thinks so from the 
mention which it contains of his fathers Station and of his 
own Education. Its language shows clearly and conclusively 
enough that he wrote, if not the whole the greater part of it. 

We shall probably be right if we understand from what we 
read therein that he was born in England but of parents 
who were normans; that he was taught his letters in his 
early years at Westminster ; and that he was not edu- 



122 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

cated at Oxford but sent abroad and educated in the college 
at Orleans. 

Let us consider the matter. 

In the year 1002 King Ethelred (who was either a widower 
or a profligate) married a daughter of the then Duke of 
Normandy; we find that in 1013 their two Sons Alfred and 
Edward were sent into Normandy with their mother the 
Queen, (they had a Sister also who went with them), and 
that they were received at the Court of the Queen's brother 
duke Biehard. (We have said elsewhere that the King 
followed them, and that the family stayed there three years.) 

It is likely that when they returned they brought 
the father of Ingulfus with them, and that he, a respectable 
but humble man had some subordinate employment at Court 
— He was perhaps one of the Queens servants who, after 
her marriage with Canute in July 1017, would be likely 
to retain some of the servants she had in her first husband's 
time ; Indeed there is reason to suppose that all the norman 
servants were still retained at Court after her son Edward 
came to the throne. 

We may believe that Ingulfus was born in London, and that 
his mother was english, — that he attracted the notice of duke 
William when he came to visit king Edward, and that he was 
engaged by him as one of his Household. Without some such 
explanation as this it is not easy to account for parts of the 
History. 

Would not Ingulfus born in England, be ashamed to confess — 
if he were not bound by some natural tie to the Normans — that he 
promoted duke William's enterprise as far as he could ? It 
would be disgraceful indeed if he were of english descent, — and 
it seems discreditable if he were of english birth only. 

But whilst we condemn the patriotism of Ingulfus we 
must not forget one thing; all the normans held that the 



ON THE HISTORY OP CROWLAND ABBEY. 123 

duke was entitled to the throne and Ingulfus himself seems 
to have thought so : His Abbot and the people of Fontanelle 
enlisted and armed twenty men for the Expedition. 

Ingulfus desired it should be thought he was religious 
when he was young ; — witness the pilgrimage ; and the passage 
in which he mentions his reason for going into a Monastery 
when he returned. He was resolved (he says) that the earthly 
tabernacle of his immortal spirit should be swept and enriched 
with worthy furniture, and that in future he would harbour 
none of the seven deadly sins. 

He might have been equally religious in England, — -and 
natural affections are a part of religion ; — he must have 
thought but little of his parents not to have come amongst 
us when he returned from Jerusalem and left the duke's 
service ; as to the rest of his religion God only knows. 

In after-life Keligion sat easy upon him ;— with an 
historian's pen in his hand and whilst he was wishing to 
appear religious, he was content to profit by the injustice of 
Lanfranc. 

Ingulfus was not english (born of english parents) but a 
norman and the son of a norman, or Lanfranc would not 
have sent for and promoted him as he did, nor would he have 
taken his part against a nephew of the norman Icing. 



124 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 



CHAPTEK XXIII. 

INGULFUS'S DEFECTS. — WHY THE ABBOT WULFKETULUS WAS 
DEPOSED. — EAKL WALTHEOF, AND THE COUNTESS JUDITH 
(his wife). — waltheof's DEATH AND HIS BURIAL AT 
CROWLAND. — MENTION BY MALMESBURY AND BY JOHN OF 
TYNEMOUTH OF THE CAUSE OF WALTHEOF'S DEATH. 

I suppose the events in the life of Ingulfus after he left 
Normandy and came into this Kingdom to normanize the 
Abbey of Crowland are related with as much truth as is 
generally found in autobiographies. Several passages which 
the history still contains show that with all his talents, and 
he had talents of various kinds, he was really out of his 
element, — He was wanting in modesty, and not so slow as 
he should have been to take advantage of accidents which 
might be turned to profit. There are instances of these two 
qualities in what he wrote respecting Wulfketulus. 



Mention has been made of the Abbot Wulfketulus (the 
Successor of Wulfgatus and the predecessor of Ingulfus). — We 
may see in the History why he was deprived of his Abbey. 

Several historians relate that at the time of the death of 
Earl Siward Earl Waltheof his son was so young that he was 
not thought fit to take his father's place as the Governor of 
Northumbria, — (that part of the Kingdom which lies north of 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 125 

the Humher). Waltheof who lived to be distinguished in 
history, is highly praised by Ingulfus for his gifts to the 
Monks of Crowland ; I suppose he was more liberal to that 
Church than Siward or any of his ancestors were to PeykirJc. 

Waltheof (according to the Ingulfus) was also the lord 
of the counties of Northampton and Huntingdon. Certain 
normans coveted the counties and the earl of Anjou (Ivo 
Taillebois) coveted his estates which were many in all parts 
of England. — " These men were thirsting for Waltheof s 
Mood though he was guiltless : — He had married Judith, the 
king's niece, but he was accused as a conspirator against 
the King, — he was tried and pronounced guilty and he was 
beheaded and buried at Winchester on the 31st May 1075." 
The Ingulfus afterwards says, "His body was exhumed 15 
days afterwards by the king's leave, when it was found to 
be sprinkled with blood as fresh as if he had been that day 
slain ; and it was brought by the Abbot Wulfketulus to 
Crowland and honourably buried there."* 

" Waltheof was most benign to religious men in general, 
and to the Monastery of Crowland in particular, — He was its 
greatest and best friend ; and although the venerable arch- 
bishop Lanfranc (who was his Confessor) declared he was 
entirely clear of all faction and conspiracy, and that if he 
should die in consequence of what was laid to his charge he 
would be a martyr, yet his most impious wife who desired to 
marry somebody else, invented falsehoods to her husband's 
prejudice and wickedly promoted his death. 

" After this martyrdom the good Abbot Wulfketulus openly 
preached and declared to his neighbours the miracles which 
God daily worked at the place of his burial. With this 



* Can De Caux's Story of the Exhumation in 1090 be but another 
Version of this, and this but a later improvement of the History ? 



126 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

preaching Taillebois and others were indignant and they 
atrociously persecuted this just man (Wulflcetulus). They 
summoned him to attend personally in London before the 
next Council. 

" And Wulfketulus appeared at the Council, where he was 
wickedly accused of idolatry. He was deprived of his Abbey 
and shut up in the cloisters at Glastonbury far away from 
every one he knew, in the custody of Thurstan, that man of 
blood who was then Abbot of Glastonbury. 

"The King a short time after Waltheof 's death would 
have given the widow {Judith) to a norman gentleman, one 
Simon Sylvanatensis " (Simon of the Woods — or according to 
Mr. Riley — Simon of Senlis), "but she refused to take him 
because he was lame of one leg." 

(Waltheof was enormously rich if the Countess Judith 
acquired all the Villages she had when the Doomsday Book 
was compiled through her marriage with him.) 

The King was angry with Judith and gave the disap- 
pointed Simon the earldom of Huntingdon, — (with as I conjec- 
ture, Saivtry and other Villages in that County). 

Ingulfus proceeds with his account of Judith as follows : — 

" In consequence of the king's anger she took flight with 
her two daughters and hid herself for a long time, despised 
by everybody. She did not marry again and she repented in 
the end of the murder of her husband, but she was univer- 
sally hated as long as she lived." (It seems she had no son.) 

Ingulfus shows us in what follows that he was acquainted 
with the family affairs of the great normans of his time. 

" Of the two daughters of Waltheof and Judith the said 
Simon, after great deliberation married the elder, — her name 
was Matilda ; By her he had two sons, Simon and Waltheof, — 
and a daughter Matilda, — none of these Children is at present 
old enough to marry. He gave his wife's sister Alice " (that 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 127 

is, the younger of the daughters of Waltheof and Judith) " to 
Radulphus Tomacensis with certain Lands which belonged 
to Waltheof. They have Children but I do not at this moment 
remember their names. 

" Simon became earl of Northampton also as well as 
of Huntingdon and built the Castle at Northampton and 
St. Andrew's Monastery near thereto." 

(Ingulf us, p. 72, Oxford Edition). 



Malmesbury and the Ingulf us both mention certain Miracles 
which made Waltheof 's tomb at Crowlancl famous. 

The following Extract from the Chronicle of Be Caux 
though materially different from a corresponding passage in 
the Ingulfus under the date 1091 shows that Ingulf us was 
quite willing to encourage the belief in those miracles : 

(In the Ingulfus it is said that the Chapter-House was 
without a roof in consequence of the fire, so that the Ex- 
humation was in 1091.) 

" 1090. This year Ingulfus Abbot of Crowland determined 
to remove the body of St. Waltheof out of the Chapter- 
house into the Church ; he had the water ready heated to 
wash it preparatory thereto, but after they had rolled off the 
cover of the tomb, the body in the 16th year of his sleep 
was found as entire as on the day on which it was buried. 
The head and the body were again conjoined, — only there was 
something like a thread round the neck, — the mark of the 
decollation, and this thread looked a little red. The appear- 
ance surprised everybody, — the monks as well as the other 
people present, for they all saw it. 

" The body was then removed into the Church " (without 
washing it, I suppose), " and buried again by the side of the 
altar, — and afterwards " (at this new grave) " Miracles were 
more frequent." 



128 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

There is a story in Malmesbury s History of the Kings which 
belongs to these particulars of Waltheof — it shows how 
Malmesbury could write to please his patrons, and it should 
have a place in any account of Crowland, for another reason 
— it not only explains what Ingulfus says and the treachery 
of other normans but shows there was no mistake about 
Judith's wickedness, — Malmesbury would have us believe 
that Waltheof was ungrateful as well as a traitor. 

" Waltheof was a giant in size and strength ; he cut down 
a host of normans one after another at the Gates of York."* 

And he then goes on to say, " Waltheof on account of his 
bravery became welcome (familiaris) to the new king who, 
after his adversaries had lost their cause thought but little 
of past offences and saw more of spirit than wrong therein. 
He gave Waltheof his niece Judith in marriage as well as 
his personal friendship but Waltheof could not restrain his 
depraved nature ; — he could not be faithful. 

" Those of his countrymen who once thought resistance 
might avail being either cut off or subdued he mixed himself 
up in the treason of Badulfus de Waher but that treason 
being detected, he was seized and kept a long time in chains 
and at last he lost his head. He is buried at Crowland. Some 
say he was drawn into a conspiracy and to take the oath " (of 
a conspirator), " and that he took it unwillingly. This is the 
excuse the English make, — the Normans assert the contrary. 

" That Badulfus of whom I have spoken, was half a Briton 
and a man whose mind was twisted and turned from every 
good thing. The King because he had married a cousin of his, 

* It is said in another Work entitled Origo et Gesta Siwardi Ducis 
that in 1066 Waltheof lying in ambush at one of the gates of York 
disposed (with his own axe) of twenty normans who sought to enter for 
shelter. / suppose this pleased both the Countess Judith and her uncle the 
king who might be glad to be delivered from some of his helpers. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 129 

a daughter of William Fitz-Osbern, had made him Earl of 
Norfolk and Suffolk, but Kadulfus looking out for greater 
things," &c. 

" On the day of the wedding at the marriage feast this 
Kadulfus made a proposal to his drunken guests, for he had 
got together a number of normans who like gluttons were 
feasting in english style, he opened his designs without 
reserve, — they had drank to excess ; — reason was blind, — and 
what he proposed w r as loudly agreed to — 

" At this dinner Waltheof and Roger earl of Hereford (the 
brother of the wife of Radulfus) and many more besides 
agreed upon the king's death ; but next day, w r hen the effect 
of the wine was gone off, they were more temperate and some 
of them repented of what they had done the day before; 

" One of them (it is said it was Waltheof) by the advice of 
the Archbishop Lanfranc sailed over to Normandy without 
delay and told everything to the King except that he said 
nothing of his own share in it. 

" The other conspirators persisted and excited their own 
people to revolt, but they had God to contend with," &c. 



The objections to Malmesburys Story need hardly be 
named. 

At the time of this alleged treason Waltheof was a man 
who would not be taken into norman counsels, — and if 
this tale of the wedding dinner were true it is strange that 
John of Tynemouth does not mention it; he says no more 
than that Waltheof was accused by his ivife. Tynemouth (who 
seems to have known what manner of men this son of 
earl Siward and earl Siward himself were), says this, 

" After 1042 the Danes were still a sore pestilence and 
the king" (Edward) "who was advised to employ a devil 

K 



130 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

to serve him against them gave Westmorland, Cumberland and 
Northumbria to Earl Siward ; and when Siward died he gave 
this earldom to Tosty, Earl Godwin's son.* 

"Siward who begot a son Wctitef" (Waltheof), "died at 
York in 1054 and was buried in the cloister of St. Mary's 
Church there ; Waltef was made Earl of Northumbria, 
Westmoreland and Cumberland ; and because he had not 
opposed the next king " (William) " that king gave him for a 
wife Jouetta, a cousin of his ; but afterwards he was accused 
of treason by this wife and beheaded by the king's orders." 

Ingulfus in speaking of the exhumation of Waltheof 's corpse 
in the year 1091 mentions something very strange; it can 
hardly be true and yet in this instance there is no per- 
ceptible reason for a falsehood. 

He says that he looked at the martyr s face and saw, at once, 
that it was the same face as that of the good Genius whom he 
had seen in a dream and who had predicted his fortunes when 
he was a monk at Fontanelle. 

* Perhaps the counties were restored to Waltheof not by Edward 
but by the norman king. 






ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 131 



CHAPTER XXIV. 

THE REAL CAUSE OP THE VACANCY AT CROWLAND AND THE 
ACCESSION OF INGULFUS (COLLECTED FROM DE CAUX). — 
STATE OF CROWLAND WHEN INGULFUS CAME. 

Soon after Waltheofs death Wulfketulus was deposed, and 
no time was lost before Ingulfus was appointed to take 
his place as Abbot of Crowland. This appointment was the 
act of Lanfrane who was the 'king's Confessor also and the 
disposer of all church preferments in the kingdom. Though 
Waltheof was buried in the Chapter-house at Crowland there 
is no reason to believe that Wulfketulus taught or thought 
he was a Saint, — or that visits to his tomb would cure 
the afflicted. 

I suppose this was a fallacy which was invented by the 
norman Monks and after the rule of the Abbot Wulfketulus, in 
whose lifetime we see that Ingulfus fostered and encouraged it. 

There are certain passages in Be Caux (our authority for 
this suggestion) which tell us the true reason for the 
deposition of Wulfketulus. 

In one passage it is recorded that Stigand the Canterbury 
Archbishop was deposed in the year 1070 to make room for 
Lanfrane ; and that " in the same year many Bishops and 
Abbots were also deposed or ejected for nothing, or on bare 
suspicion only. It was the King's will," (prompted by Lanfrano,) 
" that no man who was english should hold any honourable 

k 2 



132 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

place." The same De Caux elsewhere informs us that (( the 
monks of Ely who gave shelter to certain great men of their own 
race who were rebels against the king were outlawed, — english 
monks were everywhere worried and ill-treated and many Monas- 
teries were despoiled of all they possessed to the last farthing, 
and even of the property of others which was lodged with them 
for safety ; — and that in 1075 all the english-bom Bishops and 
Abbots were deposed by force and nor mans appointed in 
their stead." Wulfketulus (of whose doctrine De Caux makes 
no mention) must have been one of these; — Godric the then 
Abbot of Burgh was another. 

To compare some of the accounts in De Caux with the 
Ingulfus, 

Ingulf us relates that " when Wulfketulus was deposed the 
King sent a message to G-erbertus, the Abbot of the Monastery 
in which he was a monk, with a request that he would send 
poor Ingulfus to him." — After which poor Ingulfus continues 
thus, 

" Though I was- unwilling to undertake such a heavy Charge 
as the government of an Abbey I was glad to revisit my 
native land and to become a light in the candlestick of the 
church at Crowland. 

" The Monks of Fontanelle all prayed me when I left 
never to forget them or that Abbey, — and that I would 
speak in their favour to the King whose countenance they 
expected I should retain, — that I should often take part in 
conversation with him and sometimes a place at his table." 

And Ingulfus crossed the Channel again to be made an 
Abbot. — He was blessed (he says) by the Archbishop Ian- 
franc and the Bishop of London on Christmas day 1075, and 
entered and took possession of the Abbey on St. Paul's day 
(25th January) 1076. 

In the Ingulfus, as we have it, there is an account of the 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 133 

state of the Abbey when he took possession : (I doubt whether 
he wrote it, — it cannot be true). — " There were 62 Monks 
four of whom were lay Brethren, and above a hundred more 
from other Monasteries, all of the same order as the Monks 
of Crowland " (Benedictines) ; " Each of the men from other 
places had a Stall in the Choir, a Seat in the Kefectory and 
a Bed. They came when they would, and returned when 
they would to their own Monasteries ; some of them stayed 
half a year, — some a year. 

" Such strangers were accustomed to fly to Crowland in 
times of disorder or war as Bees fly to their hive when the 
sky threatens rain : — and, besides these Visitors others were 
coming every day, and were entertained according to the 
traditional hospitality of this ancient place. Nobody who 
knocked was sent away." 

Could this be truly said of a Monastery which was not in 
existence a hundred years before ? 

The Ingulfus thus speaks of the foreign monks who were at 
Crowland. There were 10 from Thorney; 6 from Burgh; 
8 from Ramsey ; 3 from Ely ; 9 from Bury St-Edmunds ; 
12 from St. Albans (?) ; 10 from Westminster ; 2 from 
St- Andrew's in Northampton; and 2 from Christ-Church, 
Norwich. 

Here we must leave Ingulfus in January 1076 and speak 
of the Charters (the title deeds of the possessions of the 
Abbey.) 



134 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 



CHAPTER XXV. 

CERTAIN CROWLAND CHARTERS WERE GENUINE.— CONFLICTS 
OP HEREWARD AGAINST THE EARL OF ANJOU (TAILLEBOIS) 
AND THE ABBOT TOROLDUS. — TOROLDUS THE KING'S NE- 
PHEW. — TAILLEBOIS' DISLIKE OF THE MONKS OF SPALDING. 

We mention that it was a principle with the Government 
in the time of the first norman King, and a principle strictly 
followed in the Survey for the Doomsday Book, that 
Monasteries had no title to the Lands which they possessed 
unless they could produce Charters. The Charters were most 
of them written in the vernacular tongue, and when they 
were produced and read to the Judges it is probable they 
were not always understood. 

It was almost a natural consequence that Writings which 
purported to be Deeds by which Monasteries were founded 
or endowed were sometimes fabricated ; this would be done 
in order to prove titles of which, though just, the required 
proofs could not be found, but it was done in other cases 
also as a means of proving titles which were perfectly unjust. 

Our business is with the nature of the Documents which 
Ingulfus produced, as well in 1076, as afterwards in 1086, and 
again in the time of King Eufus ; — a matter on which the 
question of bis honesty a good deal depends. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 135 

To the principle known by the name of honour it seems 
that Ingulfus was not a stranger when he came, but he was 
not perfectly honourable (to say the least) afterwards — and 
indeed, in his position it was hardly possible to be honest ; — 
He had to support rights of possession against a powerful 
Enemy, the before-named Taillebois whom not all his wife's 
Lands could satisfy. We do not read that Ingulf us claimed 
any Manors which had recently belonged to Burgh but the 
reason was Toroldus was the Abbot of Burgh. 

It is possible that not king Edgar and Waltheof only but 
other religious and charitable men (or men who wished to 
be thought religious and charitable) and sick and dying 
men had been generous to Crowland. All the written 
Instruments in which any of these gifts or alleged gifts 
appeared should have been inspected at the time of the 
Survey and Eeport in 1086 or the gifts withdrawn, and so 
a part of the means of subsistence would cease, but probably 
in the case of Ingulfus this was not insisted upon. 

We have reason to believe that Documents were then 
produced as true when Ingulfus knew they were false ; Can he 
be excused ? — But have the Critics who have charged Ingulfus 
with this crime always remembered that Taillebois was an 
usurper himself, and that the Abbot was morally a Soldier, 
and obliged to defend his people against usurpers of all kinds 
if he could; — and that, subject to what is advanced in the 
preceding Chapters, it is not clearly proved that the Monks of 
Crowland possessed lands to which they had no shadow of 
right. They had indeed a hind of right, — the right acquired 
by possession, — and a Casuist might dispute as to the absolute 
iniquity of what Ingulfus did. But we know enough 
against him in other respects; — we know that he wilfully 
claimed for his Abbey an origin much older than it had : 
I suppose his excuse for the setting up that Claim might 



136 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

be that it was necessary if he wished to retain the Lands ; 
and that he thought it was less unpardonable in an Abbot 
to fabricate Charters of Edward the Confessor or of the 
Kings Ethelbald, Edred, or Beorred, or to alter a Charter of 
King Edgar than to suffer his children to want ; anything 
to save the property of the Monks. 

Hereafter we shall show that it was Malmesbury who was 
employed to alter Edgar's Charter and to invent, — and that it 
was Malmesbury who invented the spurious Chapters ; — he in- 
vented parts of the History also which appear to be foolish 
and useless, — (Ingulfus could have little to do for instance 
with what is said of the Sempectse.) Of a part of those fables 
Sir Francis Palgrave might reasonably think as he did, but 
not as he thought of the whole of the History. 

Before we resume our Extracts from the pages of the 
Ingulfus it is to be observed that the Earl of Anjou, the 
before-named Ivo Taillebois, had some reason to complain of 
the proceedings of our Abbot ; Ivo met his Claims with a 
counter-claim, and then the Abbot had to meet the counter- 
claim as well as he could. 

Though Ingulfus enlivened the part of the History which 
he wrote with stories of the petty wars between normans (the 
Abbot Toroldus and Taillebois) and Hereward (the obstinate), 
I do not propose to enter in this part of my Work into the 
particulars of their operations, (indeed it is a subject which Mr. 
Kingsley in his Hereward has made his own). It may here 
be mentioned, however, that the Abbot Toroldus and 
Taillebois were Cousins. This fact does not appear to have 
been known to the Headers either of the Crowland or of the 
Burgh History. 

We have seen that the Countess Judith was a Niece, — 
Taillebois was a Nephew, of the first norman King; and, 
according to Whittlesea, (one of the Writers of Sparkes 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 137 

Historia Petroburgensis), the Abbot Toroldus was another of 
his Nephews ; I suppose these nephews and Judith were all 
children of the Bishop Odo, the king's half-brother on the 
mothers side; (Odo was not a Monk, nor was as it seems 
Toroldus, but a Canon of the Church of Bayeux). As Here- 
wards adversaries as well as King Harold's in the battle of 
Hastings both Toroldus and Taillebois have places in english 
History. 

Toroldus is famous at Burgh as the Soldier-Abbot who 
built a Tower in the Monastery and kept a Garrison therein, 
and who afterwards gave away amongst his men there the 
greater part of the Abbey Lands ; — Taillebois, if we are to 
believe the Ingulfus, coveted the lands of the Monks of Crotv- 
land, — it may be that he intended to be equally generous to 
his Men. 

The Relationship between the King and the Abbot Toroldus 
is not mentioned by Mahnesbury nor, as I think, by any of 
our Writers, ancient or modern except Whittlesea : I have 
seen no mention of it in any of our Historians except in 
Sparke, nor does it seem to have been known to Sparlce or 
to Gunton or to Patrick or to Mr. Craddock that Toroldus 
was an Abbot of Mahnesbury before he ivas Abbot of Burgh. 
Toroldus will appear again in another branch of my Work. 

As to Taillebois we see that the King brought him with him 
from France and gave him for his services a Wife who had an 
enormous Estate in Lincolnshire in the neighbourhood of 
Crowland. Ingulfus found Taillebois resident upon that 
Estate in 1076 when he came to Crowland. 

Ingulfus thus begins his account of Taillebois : — 

"After a course of prosperity Grief came and Trouble, — 
The beginning of the evil was Ivo Taillebois ; — he was always 
our most pestilent Enemy. 

" The King had given him (after the death of the Earl 



138 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

Algar and of Algar's two Cousins Edwin and Morear) Algar's 
daughter Lucy for a Wife, together with all their lands," &c. 

" Ivo had grievously troubled a Utile. colony of our Monies 
who were settled by the Abbot Turketulus" (Kenulfus) 
"in a Cell at Spalding ; — Their constant goings out and 
comings in just by his own Gate had offended him, and in 
1074 they had returned to this Monastery with all their 
goods, and Ivo after that had peopled the place with other 
Monks from France." 

It was partly to get the english Monks reinstated in the 
House at Spalding that Ingulfus undertook his journey 
to London in 1076 though his principal object was to get 
the King to confirm him and the Monks of Crowland in the 
possession of the Abbey Lands. 

He says " he wished to do this as soon as possible after his 
appointment to the Abbey for he was afraid it would be 
stripped of its last acre if it were not done without delay." 
He expected little or no difficulty, — he was sure of 
Lanfrancs Influence with the King and knew that as long 
as that Archbishop lived he should be protected against Ivo 
and all his enemies and that the Abbey and Lands of 
Crowland would be protected also. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 139 



CHAPTEE XXVI. 

INGULFUS NEEDS THE HELP OF WULFKETULUS AND HIS 
PUNISHMENT IS RELAXED. — INGULFUS GOES TO GLASTON- 
BURY IN GREAT STATE J BRINGS THE PRISONER TO BURGH 
AND LEAVES HIM THERE (TO COME TO CROWLAND WHEN 
HE MAY BE WANTED.) — THE PRISONER'S VISITS AFTER- 
WARDS TO CROWLAND. — HIS DEATH AND BURIAL. 

It was in 1076, the first year of his reign as Abbot, that 
Ingulfus solicited and obtained the release of his predecessor 
Wulfketnlus, and brought him back from Glastonbury. (He 
expected help from Wulfketulus in the matter of the Monks 
expelled from Spalding.) 

" 1076. All things going well in the Monastery I deter- 
mined to go to my Lord the King and procure by some 
means a favour for my predecessor the dominus Wulfketulus 
who was yet in exile at Glastonbury. I was aware that he 
was better acquainted than any other person with the affairs 
of our Monastery, and that he knew more of our possessions 
which lay dispersed in many Counties ; matters which I, a 
novice, through the wicked malice of our Bailiff Alsford was 
much in the dark about. 

"I went to London and found there my old friends the 
venerable Lord Archbishop Lanfranc and my Lord Gdo the 



140 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

King's uterine Brother, — (lie was the Bishop of Bayeux and 
also the Earl of Kent and the Governor of the Palace ; — by 
his counsel the King himself and the whole Kingdom were 
governed.) 

" I related the cause of my coming and, by the intercession 
of these my two great friends and with the assistance also of 
Richard de Bule the King's Chamberlain I obtained what I 
desired. 

" They ascertained the King's mind towards Wulfketulus 
and found his anger was much abated ; but he was still 
firmly resolved that Wulfketulus should not be placed in any, 
even the most humble Office in the Church. 

" The aforesaid Lords interceding (with others whom I 
had made my friends when I was living in Normandy) it was 
ordered that Wulfketulus should be removed from Glaston- 
bury to Burgh." 



We are told that this return from Glastonbury was only 
permitted on certain conditions : 

" The ex- Abbot was to reside at Burgh and not elsewhere 
and without employment of any kind ; and he was to come 
as often as I should please to send for him that he might 
inform me of the affairs of the Monastery." 

" Having obtained my petition I went with an honourable 
escort of horsemen and fetched him from Glastonbury : — 

" I took him to Burgh ; — and afterwards, as I saw he was 
a venerable man and worthy of favour and filial love, and 
also very religious, I sent for him from Burgh and reseated 
him in his former seat, — (in pristino stallo suo ipsum posui :)" 
(That is to say, Ingulfus made him. take the Abbot's 
Chair ;) — " I was answerable for him as long as he lived ; — I 
did not keep him with me altogether, but he was my repre- 
sentative when he was at Crowland, — a kind of confidential 



ON THE HISTORY" OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 141 

steward of our Monastery, — paranymphum (reputavi) vel 
procurator em Monaster ii." 

Iugulfus afterwards mentions at greater length his 
courtesy towards Wulfketulus. He thus describes the kind 
of intercourse there was between them ; — 

" Twice or three times a year 1 used to send some of my servants 
for him with becoming state ; — I often had him with me for a 
month and sometimes for half a year ; — we went about 
together into the Choir, into the Refectory and everywhere ; — 
I always deferred to him with all reverence, in respect to his 
thorough knowledge of the Monastery and all that belonged 
to it, and he was always most willing to impart. 

" During ten years which was as long as he lived I found 
things generally went well with us, — but after he was dead 
our affairs, a great many of them, went not so well. 

"He was deposed in 1075 and survived that event ten 
years (as I have said). He had a sudden stroke of paralysis 
and was ill for four Months, — helpless, and almost speechless ; 
— so that he could not express his last wishes. He died on St. 
Jerome's day 1085. He very often promised to return to us 
some Muniments and Jewels which are yet at Burgh but we 
have got but few of them though he continued to the last to 
beg, and indeed commanded his confreres, as well as he could, 
to let us have them. 

" Wulfketulus was buried at Burgh : His grave was 
between those of the Abbot and Archbishop Eldulfus and 
Godman Abbot of Thorney." 



It seems Wulfketulus was born in 1017 and was in his 
68th year when he died, — for it is said he was 27 years a 
Monk and that he became a Monk in 1048, — (the year in 
which the Abbot Egelric resigned Crowland and Wulfgatus 
was made the Abbot.) 



142 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

Wulfketulus was interested in all that concerned Waltheof; 
He was grieved for his fate and indignant, — he was not able 
to conceal his Indignation, (and it was not expected he would 
be ;) — he lost his Abbey of course. 

It is not said that Wulfketulus took part with Hereward 
but only that he was an idolater. We may see, whatever his 
offence was, that it was magnified in the eyes of the King 
whose anger ripened by degrees, and ended in a deposition. 
It does not appear however that Wulfketulus was displeased 
with Hereward's resistance to the Normans ; and probably he 
gave him help or encouragement secretly, in a way which 
could not be proved against him. 

If the King did not know this he may have suspected it : 
We are told that the lightest suspicion against an english 
Abbot drew down signal punishment. A suspicion that 
Wulfketulus looked with favour upon the King's enemies 
would better account for the deposition than the alleged 
offence, and as it is, the case of Wulfketulus is less discredit- 
able to the King than to Lanfranc. 

It is observable that the Monks of Crowland though they 
were deprived of the presence of Wulfketulus do not seem to 
have recognized the authority of Ingulf us in his place: — 
Ingulf us gave up his Chair to the deposed Abbot when he was 
at Crowland. 

What we read of the courtesies of Ingulfus towards Wulfke- 
tulus beget a suspicion that they were forced, — that notwith- 
standing the deposition, the Monks continued to regard Wulf- 
ketulus as their rightful Abbot, — and that Ingulfus was content 
to temporize and wait till his death. After his death he was 
sure to be recognized as the successor and to rule without 
difficulty by the will of the King and of the Archbishop. 



ON" THE HISTORY OF CROWLAKD ABBEY. 143 



CHAPTER XXVII. 

INGULFUS DESIRES (iN 1076) TO REINSTATE THE MONKS OF 
SPALDING, (THE MONKS EXPELLED BY TAILLEBOIS IN 
1074). — TAILLEBOIS IS INDIGNANT, AND MAKES THE KING 
ANGRY WITH INGULFUS. — CROWLAND CHARTERS WHICH 
WERE GENUINE, AND A LIST OF OTHERS WHICH WERE 
NOT. — CHARTERS SOMETIMES MANUFACTURED AT CROW- 
LAND. 

The History tells us that when Ingulfus went to Court in 
the year 1076 he took his Writings with him ; but though 
the grants of the Abbey lands were confirmed and the 
petition was favourably received Ingulfus did not, in every 
particular, succeed. 

"By the merits and prayers of our patron St. Guthlac" 
(so thought Ingulfus) " the holy Spirit inspired the heart of 
our illustrious King : All our muniments, those written in the 
saxon as well as in the gallic letter, were openly read before 
him and his Council ; They were accepted, were diligently 
examined and approved, and were confirmed, — and principally 
the Charter of King Edred, the Restorer of the Abbey;" [and 
Edred's Charter is then set out, these last particulars must 
be an improvement upon Ingulfus\ 

The before-mentioned petition which Ingulfus had pre- 
pared asked also for the restoration of the english monks in 
the house at Spalding from which house Taillebois had 
expelled them in 1074. 



144 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

"But the lord of Spalding" (Taittebois) "happened to be 
then also at Court, — and he, hearing that the King had been 
pleased to assent to all that the petition asked, ran, in hot 
haste into the hall where the King and his Officers were," 
(and but just in time to stop a business in which he was par- 
ticularly concerned.) — " He pointed out to the King that a part 
of the petition asked for the ejection of the foreign Monks " 
(a matter which Ingulf us hoped to get passed with the rest). 

Ivo's objections were almost too late, — the consent to the 
petition was already signed but the completion (the affixing 
the seal to the parchment) was an act to which Taillebois 
would not submit. " He declared that the french and norman 
Monks were well-conducted men and had always been friendly 
and faithful to him, and that from the others he could 
get nothing but curses from morning to night. 

" And, as all the normans and anjouvins who were present 
said the same the king's good-will as to the Cell at Spalding 
was diverted for the time," and the petition was, so far, useless. 
— We read that Ingulfus as soon as he got back to Crowland 
" thanked God for his success for he had obtained the confirma- 
tion of the Charters in all other respects, and had returned 
safe and sound therewith." 

Perhaps in asking for the expulsion of the foreign Monks 
Ingulfus depended too much on his services in his youth 
which he thought the King would remember, and on the 
influence of Lanfranc ; or else he thought too little of the 
king's favour for the Earl after hearing whom the King must 
have been displeased that Ingulfus should ask for another 
expulsion from the cell at Spalding. Ivo proved (as we see) 
to his Uncle's satisfaction, that it was a part of the petition 
which ought not to be granted, and in consequence, as the 
Confirmation was yet incomplete the writing was altered 
and Ingulfus dismissed. 



ON THE HISTORY OP CROWLAND ABBEY. J45 

It does not appear that the Charters which Ingulfus got 
confirmed in 1076 were the same a.3 were made available 
afterwards ; and I think they could not be those which are 
mentioned as the charters of the church of Crowland in 
Gunton's and Patrick's history of Burgh. The following is 
the first in their List. 

A charter dated a.d. 716 whereby King Ethelhald founded 
the Monastery of Crowland and made Kenulfus a Monk of 
Evesham (?) the first Abbot ; — (and there are five others, all 
mentioned in Chapter VII.) 

It seems hardly possible that Ingulfus would, so soon after 
his accession, ask for a Confirmation of so many charters 
which were wholly fictitious, — all of them Charters of Kings 
who had ceased to live long before Crowland Abbey was built. 

Notwithstanding all that has been said against Ingulfus 
I do not believe that any charters were produced in 1076 
which were not honest and true ; — none but genuine Charters, — 
and they would be all new to Ingulfus himself. 

Amongst these (for there might be others) I suppose there 
was the genuine Charter of King Edgar, — another would be a 
Grant from a former possessor of Taillebois Estate to Kenulfus 
of the Site of the House at Spalding ; — and there would be 
Confirmations of these possessions by the Kings Ethelred, 
Edmund, Canutus, and the Confessor. 

If this suggestion in favour of Ingulfus were rejected we 
have but a choice of certain alternatives wirich all seem 
incredible : Could a number of specious title Deeds have been 
fabricated so early in the norm an times ? 

Can we suppose that in 1076 there was such a process as 
this ; that a Charter of King Edgar who was the Founder of 
the Abbey was produced as a Charter of the Restorer ? or a 
Charter of King Edred, (supposing Edred's name was after- 
wards substituted for Edgars) f 

L 



146 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

If the Charters then produced were forged Ingulfus would 
not produce more than the case required. There would 
be no need of more than one, — and that would be a copy 
{made to look like an original) of the genuine Charter of 
King Edgar, (a copy made after the original had been altered 
to meet the case) ; — and such a Copy must have been made to 
contain besides the falsified substance of Edgar s Grant the 
substance of spurious Charters of earlier times, with an 
allegation that the earlier Deeds themselves were lost but that 
the contents were to be seen in the parchment then produced. 

But the Charters of Ethelbald, Edred and the rest of the 
kings before Edgar were not, nor was such a copy of Edgar 's 
Charter, produced in 1076 : 



The Charters which were produced in 1076 might be 
sufficient to meet the Claims of the Lord of Spalding in the 
time of King Bufus but they were not sufficient to sustain other 
Interests which were really iniquitous ; It will be seen that 
other deeds were prepared in 1085, and Ingulfus must bear 
the blame. 

These other deeds were prepared in the lifetime of 
Lanfranc and they were the fruits of a conspiracy between 
Lanfranc and Ingulfus, for they were prepared when Ingulfus 
was not ignorant of the real History of his Abbey. 



With respect to these Crowland Charters a passage in a later 
part of the Ingulfus may now be introduced : 

It is said that, in consequence of the renewed Claims of 
Taillebois in the time of King Kufus Ingulfus went again to 
London and again took his Charters with him. 

" Our Charters " (says another part of the History) " were, 
some of them written in duplicate, in the french as well as 
in the saxon hand, for the saxon was the hand used, by the 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 147 

Saxons and Mercians until king Alfred's time, — but king 
Alfred was taught by learned frenchmen." 

It is then said that " after Alfred's time the saxon hand 
was neglected and had grown to be vulgar and hated both 
by the french and the normans ; and, as the gallic hand was 
more easily read and more pleasing to the eye it came more 
and more into favour with the english people also, and they 
overslighted their own mother tongue." 

In what is said of the title deeds which were destroyed at 
the time of the Fire it seems to be admitted that few or none 
of those deeds would bear a close examination, — and that 
therefore it was that copies were made and substituted for 
pieces which were not thought produceable, — (and then the 
dangerous pieces were destroyed.) 

"In the library besides the privileges" (Charters) " of the 
kings of Mercia were other records and writings adorned 
with pictures and embellishments gilded and beautifully 
written but in the saxon letter :" 

" And because there were in the Deed-chest two, and in some 
cases more than two copies of some of those saxon writings 
we had from time to time previous to the fire,* graciously 
given out some of them to the dominus Fulmar (our Chantor) 
which he was to keep in the Cloisters for the instruction of the 
juniors in the saxon hand, because on account of the changes 
introduced by the normans, the saxon character had been 
for a long time neglected and had fallen into disrepute ; 
and as only a few of the older Monks were acquainted with 
it, it was thought desirable that they (the juniors) should learn 
to read what was written in that letter that they might 
be better able to defend the just rights of the Monastery 
against our adversaries. 

* Pracedcntibus autem panels annis gratios^ assumens de Cartarii 
plurima Chirographia, &c. 

L 2 



148 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

" But for this, an accidental, removal of these charters into 
the cloisters they also would have been lost when the Church 
was destroyed as were the other deeds and writings of the 
Abbey ; — forty pieces in all, all in one night 

" And so the pieces which had been deposited in an ancient 
shrine built into the wall of the Church were thus pro- 
videntially saved and they only; — Pieces which before the 
fire were secondary, slighted and despised are now our 
principal Kecords," &c. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 149 



CHAPTEK XXVIII. 

MISTAKES AS TO THE TIME WHEN, AND THE REASONS FOR 
WHICH THE FALSE CHARTERS WERE WRITTEN. — ANOTHER 
VIEW OF THE ORIGIN OF THOSE CHARTERS, THE AUTHORS, 
AND THEIR AGENT; WHEN THEY WERE INVENTED AND 
WHY. — THE DOOMSDAY BOOK. 

Mr. Kiley suggests (as has been mentioned in Chapter I) 
that we owe the Crowland documents known as the charters 
of Ethelbald, Edred and Edgar to the prior Bichard Upton. 

He says (quoting the Oxford Ingulfus p. 367) that, "to put a 
stop to encroachments, the prior Upton appears to have first 
excommunicated the people of Spalding," (This if it was done 
was of no effect;) — and afterwards — (quoting from p. 368) 
— "Upton, taking with him the charters of Ethelbald, Edred 
and Edgar hastened to London to bring the parties to trial. 
This" (says Mr. Kiley) "was a sudden mention of these 
Charters for the first time for several hundred years : Where 
had they been all the while ? and why were they never made 
use of on similar occasions before ? 

" When prior Bichard came to London it was nearly two 
years before he could make arrangements for the going to 
trial, and it is far from improbable that these two years were 
spent in framing, to discomfit his antagonists, the Charters 
which now appear in the Ingulfus. 

"The Prior paid £500 for the expenses of this Suit, and 



150 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

it succeeded, — The charters of Ethelbald and Edred were 
produced and satisfied the Arbitrators — (the Judges) ; The 
monks of Crowland had judgment and for the first time for 
centuries, a complete victory over their neighbours at 
Spalding. 

" This prior Upton acted for five years for abbot Overton 
who was blind ; and, after Overton died — (he died on St. 
Thomas's day 1417) — Upton was made Abbot in his place, and 
died 14th May 1427. (He was abbot 9 years and 4 months.)" 

Mr. Kiley supports these views by citing an argument of 
another Antiquary, Mr. Cole, who (in a note upon certain 
manuscripts dated from 1091 to 1419) doubts if the monks 
of Crowland knew when their house was founded. 

-It seems there are in Mr. Cole's collection the particulars 
of a Corody charged upon their lands in Edward the third's 
time, — that the Monks denied or resisted the grant, and pleaded 
they had had their Lands allodial {absolutely, without any 
superior lord,) under King Ethelbald, and without any charge 
thereon, and that for 500 years before the conquest. (Edward 
the third lived long before Upton's time :) 

Mr. Riley's argument is that before Uptons time the Crow- 
land people had not Ethelbald' s grant which is dated in 716 
(only 350 years before 1066) ; and that if they had had it in 
Edward the third's time they would not have pleaded as 
they did. 

With all due deference I may observe that Mr. Eiley's ac- 
count of this litigation shows only that the Monks still had 
copies (and but copies) of certain forged charters, and that by 
the help of the lawyers they made those copies available as 
proofs, — (this he shows after we have read the words of 
Ingulfus in Chapter XXYII) — and that litigation was as 
tedious and expensive then as it is now. 

What Mr. Cole says seems to weigh but little. It may be 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 151 

that the people of Crowland Had in Overton's and Upton's time, 
(though they might not produce them) the very deeds them- 
selves which were created (as is about to be mentioned) in 1085 
and also the documents which were produced to please the 
lord of Spalding in the time of king Bufus,—(See the account 
of the production to satisfy Ivo, in the In gulf us.) 

The lawyers who in 1414 or thereabouts prepared the 
pleas for the monks of Crowland would no doubt see all the 
writings those monks had to show them but Ethelbald's 
charter would not be produced at that time ; — the reign of 
the abbot Longchamp the ex-monk of Evesham was too recent 
and the incident too striking that Ethelbald's charter made 
the monk Kenulfus of Evesham the first abbot of Crowland. 
This awkward fact would be reason enough to prevent the 
production of that, and they had reasons to suppress other 
charters also. 

The mention of such a defence as an unencumbered possession 
for 500 years before the conquest was a mere formality, an 
ordinary license in pleading of which we have daily instances 
in our own times. 



We have now to speak of the Doomsday Book, — Ingulfus 
knew all about this Book. 

We have other reasons to think so, but if we had not 
there is evidence in the Ingulfus that the famous survey 
made in the winter of 1085 was designed to deprive english 
landlords of their estates ; and that, one by one, and under 
a specious pretext. 

At that time some men held their lands by parol only ; 
such a title it was said was not sufficient, and when a title 
was not in writing the lands were seized as a matter of course. 
In other cases, where the titles were in writing and to all 
just men, manifest and good the writings were sometimes 



152 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

purposely misunderstood. Sometimes the titles which were 
required were writings which the owners were once known 
to have had but could not then produce; — and unless not 
only a written but a satisfactory title were shown, that is to 
say, unless the owners produced titles which they had not 
they lost the lands. 

The inventory which is called the Doomsday hook is the 
Report of the norman lawyers who were to inquire into titles 
in the time of William the first. 

It is clear that in 1085 some of the english land-owners 
in the neighbourhood of Crowland were in an unhappy 
predicament, and that Ingulf us made use of the favour of 
Lanfranc and turned the confusion which the want of titles 
created to the benefit of his own Abbey. 

Many estates winch were left without owners were then to 
be disposed of, and in the distribution the heads of religious 
houses fared better even than other norman lords. This 
was a time for the exercise of the favour of Lanfranc. 

The time when the spurious charters of the church of 
Crowland came into existence must have been the eve of the 
survey for the Doomsday book, and under the circumstances 
mentioned above. 

Patience, sometimes a useful quality, reveals after a little 
exercise what the history of Crowland before king Edgars time 
was and is : 

It is a dream of a young imagination, — and nothing but a 
dream ; and the dreamer was Malmesbury. 

To those who are acquainted with the style or manner of 
this writer, Malmesbury, it need hardly be said that there are* 
visible marks of his pen in the particulars of Turketulus 
as the chancellor of king Edred, and again in the account 
of the charters of king Edgar to the abbies of Malmesbury 
and Crowland, and of Elfric and the monks of Malmesbury. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 153 

These are all inventions of Malmesbury's, and I think we 
must not accept Mr. Kiley's view of the origin of the charter 
of Ethelbald and the other Crowland charters, — They were 
fabricated by the agents of the abbot Ingulfus and not of 
the abbot Overton. 

If Malrnesbury could invent (and he certainly did) the 
grant of king Edgar to Malrnesbury he conld invent Ethel- 
bald's or any other of the charters to Crowland, and to alter 
charters of King Edgar would be more easy still. (If these 
inventions were inventions of 1076 Malrnesbury had no hand 
therein but they were not.) 

In 1085 Malrnesbury was unemployed, and Ingulf us had his 
services : The question is did Ingulfus solicit and purchase 
those services ? or were they conferred or forced upon him ? 

Malrnesbury was set to work upon the Crowland history, and 
no doubt with the expressed consent of the authorities of Christ- 
Church ; — But though he was only charged ostensibly with 
the interests of Crowland- abbey he had express notice also 
that the interests of Christ-Church were inconsistent with the 
claims of the church of Burgh ; and this was a notice which 
he was expected to keep in mind. 

We cannot be sure that Malmesbury's labours to serve 
Lanfranc and his church at the expense of Burgh, and to 
serve the church at Crowland at the same time were perfectly 
satisfactory to Ingulfus. 

Let us see the whole of the case : 

Malrnesbury when he invented those spurious charters and 
that spurious history was not eighteen : I imagine he was 
then at Canterbury, a troublesome petitioner for employment 
more to his mind than what he was required to do at Malrnes- 
bury ; — In this conjecture I cannot be greatly at fault, — 

The history of Crowland from Ethelbald' s time to Edgars was 
invented and written either in Lanfranc s library at Canter- 



154 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

bury or in the library at Malrnesbury ; — The Abbey of 
Malrnesbury was then his appointed home but the Librarian 
was clearly unwelcome there; when he was set to work 
he was most likely at Canterbury for Ingulfus could have 
nothing to do with the abbey of Malrnesbury : — He found 
Malrnesbury at Canterbury and in want — probably at his wifs 
end for the necessaries of Life. 






ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 155 



CHAPTEK XXIX. 

THE KING IS DEAD, AND RUFUS IS KING. — TAILLEBOIS AGAIN 
UNFKIENDLY TO INGULFUS, AND HE APPEALS TO LANFKANC. — 
LANFRANC DIES. — THE ABBEY IS BURNT. — AND TAILLEBOIS 
AGAIN REQUIRES INGULFUS TO PRODUCE HIS DEEDS. 

King William the first died in Normandy on the 9th of 
September 1088 ; Taillebois still lived on his estate, near 
Crowland ; and Ingulf us again began to live in fear of this 
lord of Spalding who, by his account, was always a " most 
rancorous enemy to Crowland ;" and he was formidable no 
doubt to Ingulfus himself whom he disliked — Ivo did not 
dissemble. 

It appears that as long as the deceased king lived Ivo's 
rage was somewhat restrained, or he was more harmless, but 
when he died it burst out afresh. 

According to the history, "Ingulfus heard with profound 
grief of the, death of his most excellent protector the King ; 
but Ivo, who relied on his influence with the new king- 
was now bent upon mischief, and, notwithstanding the media- 
tion of certain normans in the neighbourhood, he showed 
his malice against Crowland." (I suppose he maintained 
that Ingulfus had set up many unjust claims in the late 
king's time, and that deeds had been forged to support those 
claims.) 



156 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

" Whereupon Ingulfus went again to London and again 
took his writings with him." 

Finding lie should need help Ingulfus went from London 
to Canterbury where he most humbly besought the protection 
of that other excellent friend the lord archbishop Lanfranc ; 
he prayed Lanfranc to see king Rufus and intercede with him 
in behalf of himself and his abbey ; and we are to suppose 
that the archbishop promised to do what he could. 

It does not seem however, that Ingulfus was any longer 
so much of a favourite with Lanfranc : He had written a 
book to please him, and there might be something disagree- 
able in the recollection of that service ; or Lanfranc's love 
might be chilled by the infirmities of old age, or diminished 
intercourse might have loosened a former attachment, — 
In any case Ingulfus makes a poor almost a contemptible 
figure in what he says of this interview. 

He says, " I imparted my business to Lanfranc ; I threw 
myself over and over again at his feet, and on my knees I begged, 
again and again, that he would help me in my distress." 

And though the result of this petition is not a clear part of 
the Ingulfus we may understand that Lanfranc did help him 
for he was one of the causes of the danger. The Abbot 
clearly thought he went in daily fear of his life. 

In this same year 1089 Ivo offended king Rufus, — was 
banished, — and went into Anjou: — (do we not hear in this 
banishment the whisperings of Lanfranc?) — and in 1089 
Lanfranc died. 

In his mention of Lanfrancs death Ingulfus calls him 
" his venerable father and always his most beloved patron." 
He says that, " after the death of the late king, Lanfranc 
was his only remaining zealous friend, — his unwearied helper 
in all his necessities." 

And then follow some verses in praise of the archbishop, 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 157 

which " one of the monks of Crowland had written on the 
occasion of his death." 

In 1091 the Alley was lurnt ; and, though it was not 
wholly rebuilt till after the death of Ingulfus we find it was 
again inhabitable before Taillebois ceased to trouble him. 



Ingulfus thus begins the account of the Fire : — 

"In 1091, two years after Lanfranc's death, happened that 
most unfortunate event, foreshown by so many prodigies and 
predicted openly enough by very frequent visions and appari- 
tions, — the total destruction of this great Monastery ly fire ; it 
was a ferocious fire and destroyed the habitation of many 
servants of God." 

{This fire is a sulject to le more particularly noticed in 
another Chapter.) 

Ingulfus makes other mention of the said Taillebois after 
he returned from the continent,— -it seems he returned after 
the fire. 

The following matters which are a part of the Continua- 
tion ly Ingulfus after 1089 are printed from Marsham's copy ; 
they are not contained in Saviles work. 

" And now, our Abbey looking up a little (blessed be the 
Lord !) from the ashes of the deadly fire it would be time to 
end our history but that the visible malice of those who 
envy us leads me to add something more concerning their 
wickedness." 

In another passage he names one of these enemies again. 

" Ivo Taillebois, — always our implacable enemy, — believed 
the rumours which were current that our charters had all 
perished in the flames, and, therefore he cited us to show " 
(in the courts of law) "by what titles we held the lands 
which we had within his demesne although he had heard 
and seen them before." 



158 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

The result of this citation is very specially mentioned, — 
we are not left to imagine what it might he, — indeed the 
clearness of the details in this and other parts satisfies the 
reader that notwithstanding its numerous falsehoods the 
history as we now have it is, in general what it originally 
was. The dates of events in the continuation suggest that 
the original of Marsham s manuscript was taken to pieces 
and some only of the sheets preserved — and those not all 
restored to their proper places. 

The judgment of Ingulfus was tried when, after the deaths 
of the first William and Lanfranc — after the fire — and 
after Ivos return from exile he was cited to produce his 
deeds afresh : Lanfranc, no less guilty in the matter of the 
forgery than he, had left him to bear all the disgrace. 

Ingulfus — called upon to show his writings for the^ third 
time — declares that Ivo had seen them before or had heard 
them read, but this was not true of the deeds which Ivo 
desired to see : and it was a heedless excuse for we are told (in 
effect) that the deeds which he wished to see were amongst 
those which were burnt in 1091 . 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 159 



CHAPTER XXX. 

A CONJECTURE RESPECTING THE FIRE. — HEREWARD AND 
TOROLDUS. — ACCOUNT OF EGELRIC RESUMED. — DID NOT 
THE ABBOTS OF BURGH ALWAYS APPOINT THE ABBOTS 
OF CROWLAND ? AND BY SOME PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT ? — THE 
HISTORIAN HUGO OF BURGH. 

Some of the particulars respecting Taillebois which the 
Ingulfus contains were written, probably, whilst Taillebois 
was in exile ; but though the history neither spares this nephew 
of the first William nor Judith his niece the writer was 
perhaps under some restraint in respect to Toroldus ; — or he 
may have written matters against him which have been 
struck out. 

Most of the history is of events before the Doomsday- 
book was compiled (before 1086) ; but perhaps it was after 
that time that the parts were written which contain most of 
what we know of Hereward. Hereward's operations were 
principally in the neighbourhood of Burgh and concerned 
Burgh rather than Crowland, and yet the professed historians 
of Burgh tell us less than Ingulfus about him. 

The words of Ingulfus show not only that he had seen the 
Doomsday-Book, but that Hereward' s exploits were events of 
clays which had long passed away. His struggles were ended, 
indeed (as far as they are known) whilst Ingulfus was a 
monk in Normandy ; — he tells us that when this history 



160 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

was written Hereward's acts had been put into rhyme and that 
songs in his praise were sung in public places, — (where roads 
crossed and in the streets.) 

And thus we see that Ingulfus did not write concern- 
ing Hereward of his own knowledge but copied these matters 
out of some earlier writer ; — (the remark in the history that 
Hereward's hand was against every man and every mans hand 
against him is of a piece with the following expression in the 
fragments of our ensdish chronicle, — "Hereward and his 
gang" 

But another reason may be imagined why the Ingulfus does 
not contain more than it does concerning the abbey of Burgh 
and above all, of the history of Toroldus and of the abbey in 
his time. 

Toroldus was Abbot from 1069 until 1098,— and from 1076 
till 1085 Wulfketulus the deposed Abbot of Crowland was one 
of his people : I suppose Wulfketulus was dead when Malmes- 
bury was employed. 

That other reason and the true reason seems to be this : 
the abbey of Burgh and all its belongings were unpleasing to 
Lanfranc. Egelric was not to appear in the Crowland 
history either as a monk of Burgh or as a bishop of 
Durham ; or the bishops Edmund and Elfwinus the one as 
a monk of Burgh and the other as an abbot of Crowland ; 
These and other facts equally distasteful could not easily be 
suppressed if more had been said of the abbey of Burgh. 

We probably have the remains in our english chronicles of 
a work from which Ingulfus selected a considerable part of 
the materials for the Crowland history, — materials turned 
into latin (with variations of his own) in the parts which 
mention events in and after Egelric's time. "We should have 
seen Elfric more distinctly in those chronicles if they were 
entire and probably more of Egelric also,— seen more of their 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 161 

minds and habits of thought, and heard not fragments only 
but the whole of their tales from their own lips. 

In our 18th and 19th Chapters we have mentioned some 
of the events in Egelrie s life, and let us now turn again to 
his 'personal History. 



According to our authorities (though Elfric's account and 
Wulstan's differ) Edward the confessor who came to the 
throne in the middle of the year 1042 was crowned at 
Winchester on the 5th of April 1043 by the Archbishops 
Edsius of Canterbury and Elfric of Yorh and almost all the 
other bishops were present. — Edsius of Canterbury was really, 
Leofric afterwards Abbot of Burgh, 

According to the copy of the Chronicle which was 
archbishop Laud's it was on the 11th of January 1041 that 
bishop Egelrie was consecrated an archbishop of York; 1 
suppose it is computed in that copy that the year began and 
ended on the 25th of March ; and that consecration would be 
as we now reckon, an event of January 1042 (a few months 
before the death of Hardicanutus). At the time of the 
accession of the confessor Egelrie (then 41 or 42) was still 
living at Burgh, one of the brotherhood there but not as far 
as is known, an officer of the Church. 

When Elfric was about to abdicate the archbishoprick of 
York and might have selected any other Ecclesiastic for his 
successor he chose Egelrie. (We have seen that in this case 
the choice was abortive.) 

When in 1042 at the end of the reign of Elfwinus as an 
abbot of Crowland and a bishop of Durham, there was a 
vacancy at Crowland and in the bishoprich Egelrie was 
appointed to succeed him both in the Abbey and in the 
Bishoprick : It was not one of the provisions of the founder 
of Crowland that after Kenulfus the succeeding abbots of 

M 



102 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

Crowland were always to be monks of Burgh for Elfwinus 
was not a monk of Burgh, but they were all appointed by the 
church of Burgh and were commonly monks of that Church. 
Egelric rejected as their bishop by the Canons of York was ap- 
pointed (not elected) to the bishoprick of Durham and to the 
government of the monks at Crowland ; and thereupon he 
left Burgh again and until the year 1048 took the place of 
the abbot Elfwinus at Crowland both as abbot and a bishop. 

In our 18th Chapter after mention of Brithmer (Elfwinus) 
what remained to be said respecting him was reserved. 

Here it may be noticed that it was not in consequence 
of the natural death of Elfwinus that the Abbey and the 
Bishoprick became vacant for he lived two or three years 
after that event ; — Appointed in 1020, perhaps 1042 was not 
the regular end of the appointment? He was degraded 
(I mean displaced) at the end of the life of Hardicanutus, — 
but was he disgraced ? and why ? 

The Historians of those times answer this question, but is 
not Elfwinus charged with the sins of Kinsinus ? 

Egelric invested in 1042 with both the honours which 
Elfwinus held changed his residence from Burgh to Crow- 
land, and there in his little closet he managed and directed 
as a bishop of Durham the spiritual affairs of that diocese. 
He would have to visit the clergy and the churches within the 
bishoprick; to ordain priests and to act as a judge in all 
questions which arose therein within the jurisdiction of a 
Bishop. 

To whom did Egelric owe these appointments ? 

In or soon after the year 1037 Elfric lost much of the 
influence which he had at Court in the times of Ethelred and 
Canutus. He was obliged to submit to the greater power 
of Earl Godwin ; — for four years before 1042 he was sinking 
into comparative obscurity and there is reason to believe 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 163 

that in the beginning of the year 1042 he was willing to 
relinquish his duties as a Bishop and an Archbishop. It 
seems also that in that year he gave up to Kinsinus (but I 
suppose under constraint) the Government of his Abbey ; — 
that is to say, he was partly if not altogether superseded therein ; 
But Kinsinus was not the choice of the Monks. 

Elfric was not canonically deposed, and we see that Egelric 
the proposed successor in the Archbishoprick was rejected 
and Elfric was still the Archbishop in April 1043. 

Whether Elfric did manage to maintain his station in the 
Abbey till 1042 (when Egelric succeeded the Abbot and 
Bishop Elfwinus) is uncertain, but Egelric would be more 
likely to owe the succession to Elfric than to Kinsinus. He 
would not have accepted appointments from Kinsinus seeing 
that Kinsinus was an usurper till after Elfric's death. 

Kather than believe that Egelric owed anything to Kinsinus 
we might imagine that the Alley which Ingulf us held was in 
the gift of the Monks of Burgh without the intervention of 
their Allot, — and that they appointed Egelric. 

Our view of these matters is that, before Egelric was conse- 
crated as Elfric's successor (in January 1042) Elfric had 
renounced the Archbishoprick ; he had seen or supposed that he 
must give place and was not displeased to give place to 
Egelric ; but Earl Godwin as well as the Canons of York was 
dissatisfied with that arrangement. 

Hugo the historian of Burgh (who, as well as the Chronicle, 
mentions the consecration of Egelric as an Archbishop), 
accounts for his rejection in a peculiar way ; he says it was 
the nature of Canons to hate all Monks, and that the canons 
of York would not accept Egelric lecause he was a Monk. — 
After this, he says that Egelric was made a bishop of Durham 
lecause he was rejected at York. 



m 2 



164 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 



CHAPTER XXXI. 

ACCOUNT OF EGELKIC CONTINUED. 

It has been related in the preceding Chapters that Egelric 
ceased to be the Abbot of Crowland in 1048 and Wulfgatus 
was made Abbot, but that though Egelric resigned (as it 
seems) the Abbofs chair to make room for Wulfgatus he 
continued to hold the Bishoprick of Durham until 1056 and 
to reside in the Monastery at Crowland. 



When Be Caux (who mentions Egelric's return to Burgh 
in 1056) was consecrated an Abbot of Burgh, and when Burgh 
was become a part of the province of Canterbury he was 
sworn, like other Abbots, to shut his Eyes to Iniquities, and 
made to comply with all the Requisitions of the Archbishops. 
He complied with the letter of his oath (as has been said) 
but against his will, and when he chronicled the event of 
Egelric's return to Burgh he was determined not to afford 
any help to falsehoods which he could honestly withhold. 

It is said that Egelric devoted his life to study and 
literature, an expression which means (as we show) that 
he read and composed tvorks of Biography and History. And 
though we are required to believe that he wrote whilst he 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 165 

was at Crowland a body of history (in latin) in the form of 
a part of the history which Ingulfus continued we can hardly 
doubt it was written after 1056 and at Burgh, and written 
not as a part of the History of Crowland but in some other 
form. He described matters proper for History and easily 
convertible, and therefore Ingulfus made what he wrote, as 
far as he thought fit, a part of his own Work. 

This forced contribution to the history of Crowland was 
written (to my thinking) as parts of a life of Elfric, and 
to inform men who might take an interest in that Abbot and 
Archbishop; If it were written for a local History it was 
most likely for a History of Burgh — a place wherein the 
writer began to live and expected to die, and I suppose it was 
written in english. 

Whatever the writings of Egelric were of which Ingulfus 
made use he re-moulded the sentiments, rejected many things, 
{everything which was not consistent with a certain purpose), 
and added thereto and intermixed therewith many things that 
were false ; he adopted his text only when the Interests of 
the Church of Canterbury were not concerned. 

Egelric lived long enough at Burgh to know what happened 
there after Hereward came from Bruges in 1069 ; Ingulfus 
could learn nothing from Egelric himself but might learn 
much from accounts which Egelric had written, and perhaps 
he had his information respecting that person partly from 
Egelric's writings, partly from Wulfketulus, and partly from 
others who were equally well acquainted with the facts ; 
Hereward would live a long time in the memories of the 
Monks of Crowland. 

It is time to conclude this account of Egelric, and to take 
leave of him for the present. 

We find the following story of the close of his life in 
trunton and Patrick: — 



166 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

" The two brethren Egelricus and Egelwinus were ac- 
cused to King William, who laid up Egelricus in Chains at 
Westminster during his life. When he was near his end 
he refused to have his fetters taken off and desired he 
might be buried with them, and so was he buried in the 
Abbey at Westminster in St. Nicholas Porch'' (Gunton,p. 16.) 

Patrick's account is as follows : — . 

" Egelric was accused in the Eeign of the Conqueror for 
carrying away treasure from Durham which he would not 
restore ; — was brought to London, — committed to custody, 
and died in cajptione Regis, as says Simeon of Durham. (Hist. 
Dun. LIIL c. 9.) 

" In the year 1072 death delivered him out of custody. — 
Wherever Bishop Godwin had it that he was accused of 
treason I cannot yet find : perhaps he was thought a Con- 
federate with his brother Egelwinus, his Successor in Durham, 
who, as the said Simeon relates, being weary in 1070 of the 
troubles of England took ship at Wearmouth with many 
other great persons and went into Scotland, but returned 
the next year with Hereward and the rest to the isle of Ely, 
where Egelwinus, being taken prisoner, was sent to Abingdon 
and there ended his days in the winter of 1071, one year 
before his brother." (Patrick, p. 257.) 

Hugo and several others mention the chains with which 
Egelric was loaded, and they also say that " when he came 
to die he would not have them struck off ; He said he would 
be buried as he was, and that he should rise again a Martyr." 

We have said that the Abbot Toroldus heaped up a Mound 
at Burgh ; This was within the walls of the Monastery and 
within a hundred yards of the Church ; upon this Mound he 
built a Fort, and (to protect them and himself from Hereward) 
he lodged his men therein ; The mound is still called Toot- 
Hill — I suppose from Tot, (ready). 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAUD ABBEY. 167 

It seems that in these times the monks of Westminster had 
much such neighbours as those of Burgh. Why else the 
name of the street close by Westminster abbey — Tothill 
Street t 

The prison in which Egelric was kept would be that Fort. 
It was not, I suppose, a Fort within the Abbey walls (as at 
Burgh), nor was he kept in the apartments of the Monks.) 

What is said respecting the flight of Egelwinus to Scot- 
land by the writer whom Patrick calls Simeon of Durham 
is most likely false ; when he said that Egelwinus took ship 
at Wearmouth he wished to imply that he resided within 
his diocese of Durham. 

There is no evidence that Egelric took any part with 
Hereward, but rather the contrary. 

It seems that Egelwinus, a younger man than Egelric, was 
found in the woods amongst the King's adversaries, and that 
this was thought enough to condemn Egelric ; Toroldus seized 
him at once, and sent his men with him to Westminster. 

There is an account of Egelric's end in the Chronicle 
Tiberius B. IV. (I suppose it was written by Wulstan — he 
must have known the facts.)* 

He says Egelric (who was ejected not rejected as an arch- 
bishop,) was made bishop of Durham ; That he held that 
Bishoprick as long as he would ; then resigned it and went to 
Burgh, and that there he directed or governed for twelve 
years. 



* " MLXX1II. Se biscop ^Egelric tbrthferde : he \v«es to-bisceope gehadode 
to Eoferwic ac bit wses, mid un-rihte, him of-ge-numen, and geaf him 
thaet bisceoprice wt Dunholme ; he hit hsefde tha hwile the he wolde, and 
forlet hit, si th than, and ferde to Burh to see Petres Mynstre, and th&er 
drohtnod XII gear. 

" Tha, setter tham the Willelm gewann Engla-land, he let bine nyraan 
of Burh and sende bine to Westmynstre ; and he thasr forthferde on Id. 
Octob. and is thasr bebyrged innan see Nicolaes portice." 



u\s 



A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 



This means that he was for twelve years a resident at 
Burgh and during that time a Bishop of our english Church 
— that is to say, from 1056 the year of his return to Burgh 
till 1068. It is possible that he absconded in 1068 and was 
not apprehended until 1070 or 1071. It will be seen that he 
had another diocese after he resigned the bishoprick of 
Durham. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 169 



CHAPTER XXXII. 

MACHINATIONS OF LANFRANC TO MAKE THE ARCHBISHOPRICK 
OF CANTERBURY SUPREME. 

Though Ingulfus adopted the falsehoods which appear in the 
earlier part of the History (the part which Malmesbury invented 
for him) he had his scruples : he says they were written by 
others, — he leaves us to understand that he supposed what he 
adopted was true, but he does not forget to let us know 
that he was not the author. 

He saw that the History during his own time must be 
differently treated, and therefore his own part of it, that is to 
say, the history from the commencement of his reign and 
during his time is distinguishable, — it is not of a piece with 
much which precedes it but more like a narration expected 
to be believed. What is said, however, of the cause of the 
deposition of the Abbot Wulfketulus and much besides, 
specious as the stories are, cannot be true. 

Another word here respecting Lanfrane. 

From the day on which Stigand the Canterbury arch- 
bishop was deposed and Lanfrane put in his place Lanfrane 
contemplated nothing less than the establishment of his own 
absolute supremacy in the Church of this kingdom, — a supre- 
macy unheard of until he came. In this design he was 
followed by the succeeding Archbishops, and in the course of 



170 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

time it was accomplished. This, until Henry the Eighth's time 
was a visible usurpation ; The ancient equality of the Arch- 
bishops of Canterbury and York within their respective 
provinces was notorious, and until all traces of this equality 
could be effaced Lanfranc and his line of Archbishops 
laboured for priority in vain. 

We have said that the Archbishops of York before and, 
with rare and unavoidable interruptions after the destruction 
of Medeshamstead in 870 were the Abbots of Burgh ; Elfric 
was not the last Abbot of that Monastery who was the 
Archbishop of York for after his death Kinsinus was for a 
time (and lawfully perhaps) the Archbishop. 

One of the means and probably the first which the 
Normans adopted to effect their purpose was to stigmatize 
Elfric as a heretic : Heresy is prominent amongst the charges 
against him but not the only one ; they declared also, that 
he was ambitious, covetous and pitiless ; and that he was 
hated for these and other vices above all the men of his time. 
We shall see hereafter that his Name was first marked for 
execration; that its connection with the abbey of Burgh 
was forbidden ; and that in the end he was absolutely pro- 
scribed ; and with him fell all the subsequent archbishops 
of York as equals of the archbishops of Canterbury. 

In Lanfranc's time and after, but not before, not only every 
english Bishop, but every Abbot or other Head of a religious 
house in the kingdom was required to attend and accept his 
office from the hands of the Canterbury archbishop ; and 
though (and particularly in the consecration of the Heads of 
churches north of the Humber) this rule may have been and 
was indeed relaxed, it continued to prevail elsewhere. 
Thus, until after he had knelt at the feet of Lanfranc or his 
Successors, no bishop or abbot could lawfully take his seat. 

I imagine that early in that Normans Beign an order was 



ON THE HISTOKY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 171 

made that in the oaths to be taken when they were conse- 
crated the candidates were to renounce the faith and doctrines 
which fflfric held, and to swear to a belief that they were 
pernicious, and such as no christian man could entertain : 
and (strange as these assumptions may seem) I quite believe 
that not many years after Lanfranc's death the mention of 
Elfric's name was declared to be a sin: — there was surely 
a declaration if not an oath to this effect, and which none 
but the Archbishops could have imposed upon their fellow- 
men. Its infraction was treated as an ecclesiastical offence, 
and offenders would be rigorously punished. 

To apply these conjectures to our purpose, 

The men who were required to enter into such engage- 
ments were, in general, obedient themselves, and exacted 
obedience from their own subjects; but there were among 
them some who seem to have thought it sufficient to obey in 
form only ; and one or two of such more liberal men have 
left us indications which properly followed lead to the truth. 

We see that one of these more free spirits was the Abbot 
De Caux who showed us in his Chronicle (as is to be seen 
in the copy to which I have elsewhere referred), that he did 
not wish the name of Elfric should be suppressed. 



172 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 



CHAPTER XXXIII. 

INGULFUS, AND THE PAKTS IN THE CONTINUATION WHICH 
BELONG TO HIM. — ACCOUNT OF HIS DEATH. — REMARKS ON 
MB. RILEY'S ACCOUNT OF THE MARSHAM COPY, AND SOME 
PARTICULARS OF OTHER COPIES NOT SO WELL KNOWN. 

We may now proceed with the part of the Crowland History 
of which Ingulf us himself was the author. 

Though in admitting the earlier part (the part contri- 
buted by Malmesbury) Ingulfus admitted a great deal of 
falsehood, we may bear in mind that it was Lanfrancs 
desire that he should make out a dishonest history; and 
the greater part of the work as we have it was compiled in 
Lanfranc's time. 

Ingulfus, as far as we know, was under no personal obliga- 
tion to A?iselm, and after Lanfranc's death he was more at 
liberty to write honestly. 

Assuming, as ive do, that Ingulfus began to write the 
Crowland History about the year 1086 we shall see that 
he rested in 1089, when Lanfranc died, and seems not to 
have intended to continue his task though he did afterwards 
resume it. I suppose the first end of it was what is said 
of Ivo's Banishment in 1089 and of the Writers of the several 
parts. 

" Ivo ivas banished, and reiurned into Anjou from whence lie 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 173 

came ;" and then, " Thus far I, Ingulf us Abbot of Crowland 
have continued this History," &c. 

In the part called the Continuation after Ingulfus by Peter 
of Blois it is said under the date MCVI that " Sundry ill- 
nesses which wearied and made his old age painful forbade 
Ingulfus to continue the history to the end of his life." This 
may mean that he continued it until 1106, {about three years 
before he died.) He resumed the work after 1089, for he 
wrote a very minute account of everything which happened 
in the night of the Fire,— in 1091 : 

It seems that he rebuilt the belfry, and the nave of the 
Church within a very few months : there are other parts de- 
scriptive of events which show they must have been written 
by him though they appear as parts of the Continuation by 
Peter of Blois. 

The dates in the margin of the history (we speak of the 
Oxford edition) are not always to be depended upon, nor 
do the events follow in their proper order : we see for instance 
that what is said of the Fire precedes several earlier events : 
the distribution of the parts of the History between Ingulfus 
and the reputed Continuator Peter of Blois must be wrong. 

The truth is (and it is a point to be remembered) that the 
work of Ingulfus and of the Continuator were put together in 
haste and with a carelessness which seems inconsistent with 
any settled design. 

Let us pass to the account of the Abbot's death : 

Under the date 1109, it is first said 

" At this time although various diseases had prevented the 
abbot Ingulfus from continuing the history nevertheless he 
worked hard in the restoration of his House," &c. 

" He was thirty-four years Abbot during ten of which his 
predecessor Wulfketulus survived ; for the remaining twenty- 
four he was much troubled by the illwill of other Monasteries, 



174 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

and by various misfortunes. He bade farewell to the malice 
of the world on the 16 Kal. Jan. 1109 " (16 Dec.) " in the 
9th year of Henry the 1st." 

(He died of the Gout.) 

Amongst the troubles of Ingulfus we may reckon the east 
and the south-east winds, and the hells of Elfric's Monastery : 

(Writing, — we will not say after the fire) — the unhappy 
Abbot informs us that in the days of the abbot Turketulus the 
finest belts in England were the bells at Crowland. 

(He says they had a peal of eight bells of the names 
of Saint Guthlac, Saint Pega and six others.) 

I think it is certain that the part of the history which 
belongs to Ingulfus extends to the year 1106. 



We may now refer again to Mr. Riley s Extracts from, and 
remark upon his Remarks on the Editor's introduction to the 
Oxford edition. 

" Selden when he wrote had heard that the autograph 
History by Ingulfus was then kept at Crowland ; he had 
tried with considerable trouble and at some expense to get 
to see it but in vain, though Sir Henry Spelman had seen 
the same Book which he calls very ancient, (veterrimwm) ; 
and which, in his time, was kept under a third key." (So 
Selden understood.) 

"And at this day" (1684) "it is not produceable — (non 
comparet), as they told us when we inquired." 

(I think the inquiries should have been made not at Crow- 
land but at the library at Lambeth.) 

" The Editor observes that though the Marsham, (the more 
complete of his two copies,) was mutilated towards the end 
there did not seem to be much wanting." (This, however, is 
not so certain.) 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROW LAND ABBEY. 175 

Mr. Riley understood, and thought it strange that the 
copies of the Crowland History were so few — those known 
as Cottons and as MarshamJs — two only — " None besides. " 

We have the remains of other copies in the Burgh histories, 
which histories relate as does Saviles editions the par- 
ticulars of the destruction of that Monastery (then called 
Medeshamstead) in the year 870. 

The passage from the Chronicle of the Abbot De Caux 
under the date of the year 1090 which is not in the printed 
Ingulfus but is mentioned in this Volume (Chapter XXIII) 
was taken from a more entire Ingulfus than we now have ; (it 
describes in language materially different from the language 
in the Ingulfus the removal of the body of Waltheof from the 
Chapter-house at Crowland into the Church :) and this passage 
would probably appear in one of the copies of the Ingulfus 
which G-unton had (the Copy which had a Continuation) if 
that copy could be brought to light, for Gunton's copy and 
De Caux's copy was probably one and the same. 

Our extracts from the Ingulfus of the Burgh History are 
extracts which Gunton borrowed not from Savile's editions, as 
might be supposed, but from his own manuscripts ; and 
these, with a short Introduction we will carry into the next 
Chapter. 



176 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 



CHAPTEK XXXIV. 

EXTRACTS FROM COPIES OP THE INGULFUS AND FROM PAS- 
SAGES in gunton's and Patrick's history of burgh 

CONNECTED THEREWITH EXPLANATORY OF THE HISTORIES 
OF CROWLAND AND BURGH. 

In the Oxford Ingulfus (p. 56) there is an account of a 
second destruction of the Monastery of Burgh by fire in the 
year 1013. 

Since Gunton does not mention anything of the kind it 
seems that nothing was said of it in his Walter of Whittlesea 
or by any other of the historians of Burgh whom he con- 
sulted. It is plain that he had two or more copies of the 
Ingulfus— one which like Saviles would end in 1085, and 
another which had a Continuation, but in neither of the two 
could there have been a relation of the destruction of 1013. 

Patrick also, who does not notice the omission in Gunton, 
is equally silent, except that in page 251 he shortly quotes 
Ingulfus from the Oxford Edition in these words : 

" Ingulfus tells us that in the same year (1013) this 
Monastery {Burgh) was again burnt by the same King Swain 
(the father of Canutus)." 

If we turn from Patrick to the account in the Ingulfus 
we read therein to the following effect : — 

"In 1013 the Danes under Swain turned the monaster if of 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 177 

Saint Peg and all their contiguous manors, — Every family 
cut off or led away captive: — the Abbot with all his people 
flying by night and coming by water to Crowland was saved : 
— Likeivise the Monastery of Burgh with its neighbouring 
villages and manors — Eye, Thorp, Walton, Werrington, 
Paston, Dogsthorp, and Caster — first, stripped of everything, 
and then given to the flames" — (" Abbas, cum major e parte 
conventus sui, assumptis secum sacris reliquiis Sanctarum 
Virginum Kyneburgse, Kyneswithse et Tibbse," £c.) — " The 
Abbot and the greater part of his Convent taking with them 
these sacred Belies went to Thorney ;- — the Prior (with some of 
the brethren who took with them the arm of St. Oswald the 
King) fled to the isle of Ely ; and the Sub-prior with ten of 
the brethren came to Crowland. 

" Happily the inundations were excessive that year for there 
was a great deal of rain ; — there were Pools and Marshes in 
our Neighbourhood which were impassable''' 



What are we to think of this intimation that Croivland 
escaped because the waters were out ? — If they were out at 
Crowland they were out at Burgh. 

I suppose Ingulfus commonly received the inspirations of 
his evil genius Lanfranc through Ernulfus, Lanfranc's 
Secretary : — (When Lanfranc died in 1089, Anselm, the next 
Archbishop, adopted the Secretary and he was made the 
Prior of the monks of Christ-Church.) 

And that when in 1089 Ingulfus had made as he thought 
an end of the history the Manuscript was shown to Ernulfus, 
and that Ernulfus when he read it, made certain alterations 
therein ; — The arm of St. Oswald the King was not in Elfrics 
abbey in Elf rids time and, as this Prior of Christ- Church did not 
know till 1107 that Croivland and Burgh were both on the 

N 



178 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

same level, I suppose it was he also who inserted the above 
passage as to the floods in 1013. 

In our Chronicles we have in Elfric's own words a more 
truthful though a mutilated account of the destruction of 
Burgh and the neighbourhood in 1013. 

And now let us turn to Gunton (p. 7) where we shall see 
something of the doings of the nor mans as well as the 
danes : The passage in which the matter was described in the 
history which Malrnesbury had written and Ingulfus continued 
was not suffered to stand without the substitution of a false 
date. We can hardly imagine that in this case the facts were 
so perverted by Ingulfus himself, and yet it is possible (as he 
had to bolster up a fabulous history) notwithstanding we 
have the above account in the printed Ingulfus of the fate of 
Burgh in 1013. 

Gunton gives us, and that from his Ingulfus, an account of 
one destruction only in an invasion by the danish race, and 
that in 870. But his Story is a relation of the two calamities 
of 870 and 1013 intermixed : it combines the acts of the 
danes of 870 with the acts of other danes in 1013. 



Gunion thus speaks of the silence of the Historians of 
Medeshamstead as to the Abbots of the place after the Abbot 
Hedda (in whose time he says it was destroyed in 870), and as to 
what those Abbots did until it was destroyed. He says first 
the destruction in 870 was complete, and then 

" We shall be beholden to Ingulfus the abbot of Crowland 
for a memorable history of the Abbot Hedda. 

" In this bloody tempest " (in 870) " the monastery of Grow- 
land was first overwhelmed, — the danes killing all they met 
with, and Oshetulus the barbarous king slaying the Abbot 
Theodorus upon the altar with his own Hand ; — they then 
plundered the Monastery and set it on fire. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 179 

" On the 4th day after the Danes departed with a great 
booty of goods and cattle towards Medeshamstead where 
they found many of the Country people retired within the 
Monastery, who with the Monks stood upon their guard. 
The Danes making several assaults a Brother of Earl 
Hulba was by the defendants mortally bruised on the head 
with a Stone cast from that tower which he assaulted : 
whereat Hulba was so enraged that having entered the 
Monastery he slew all the Monks with his own hand ; the 
rest of the people were slaughtered by the Soldiers. The 
aged Abbot Hedda escaped not the hands of Hulba but was 
slain with his Monks. Then were the Altars broken down ; 
Monuments demolished ; a goodly Library set on Fire ; 
Charters, Evidences and Writings (to a great number) all torn 
in pieces. Then the Church itself with all the appendant 
buildings was set on fire, which continued for fifteen days 
together. The Danes (as I find in a Continuation of In- 
gulf us) with the riches of the Monastery and the cattle of 
the Country departing on the fourth day, 

" There were two Earls among them, both called by one 
name Sidroc, the one the elder the other the younger who 
marched in the rear of this devouring multitude to guard 
them in their passage over Streams and Kivers. 

" And when the multitude had passed over the Eiver Nen 
these two Sidrocs being to pass over with their booty two 
Waggons laden with their choicest riches were overthrown, 
and together with their horses sunk into a deep pit a little 
beneath the Bridge." 



Let us notice a few passages in this story from Guntons 
Ingulf us, really a relation however inexact of the event not 
of 870 but of 1013 — (observe that it contains no mention of 

N 2 . 



180 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

the Monastery of St. Peg). And first, the mention of a 
space of four days which the Danes are said to have spent in 
the destruction of Crowland. We have seen that Crowland 
was not founded till about 100 years later but it may well 
be that the Danes did spend four days at Medeshamstead. 

I suppose the names Tulba and Hulba given to their 
leaders in the copy without a Continuation are false, and 
Sidroc the elder and Sidroc the younger the true names. 

It is clear that Gunton knew but of one invasion and 
destruction of Medeshamstead though there were two; and 
his account is certainly to be applied to the destruction in 
1013. That account is fabulous in many respects though it 
seems to contain several particulars of the destruction in 870. 

But what were the facts in 1013 ? 

We have seen that in 1013 the Abbot of Burgh was Elfric 
(not Hedda). 

Elfric escaped with his life as did many of the Monks, 
but the Country people who according to this account, had 
sought shelter in the Monastery and probably certain of 
the monks also were put to the sword. 

What is said of a Fire of 15 days' duration, and of the 
destruction of altars and monuments the library and the 
charters are particulars which I suppose are true of the 
event of 1013. They are particulars which, though possible 
in 870 are not likely to have happened twice or to be appli- 
cable to that older Story. 

That the destruction in 870 was complete is a point in 
history which has never been disputed ; neither is there 
much, if any reason to doubt that in 870 the Abbot and the 
monks were all put to death. It is certain also that the 
danes overran this part of the kingdom again in 1013 ; we 
are told that they did no mischief then at Crowland. And 
it seems they did not. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 181 

We may collect that in 1013 the people of the neighbour- 
hood of Burgh fled to the Monastery at their approach, and 
there is nothing unreasonable in the belief that these fugi- 
tives were shut out by the terrified Monks,, and intercepted 
and knocked on the head, and that some of the monks who 
afterwards endeavoured to escape shared their fate. 

I have referred to the relations of the events of these 
times which are contained in Elfric's Chronicles ; but though 
those Chronicles in their present state, and the above 
extract from the Ingulfus seem to leave what was done at 
Burgh a little in the dark, we may imagine the danes m 
their progress along the Watling Street did not turn off 
towards Crowland, — they made for Medeshamstead and plun- 
dered and burned the place ; they certainly did not exter- 
minate all the Monks. 

I suppose that Egelric was one of those ten who, with the 
Sub-prior, escaped to Crowland, and that it is his account of 
Thurgar and the Sidrocs and the whole Story of the event of 
1013 which is inserted with such monstrous variations in the 
Crowland History. What is said of the dispersion and flight 
of the Monks is not, I think, to be rejected. 

I suppose a principal object of the invaders, and to the 
attainment of which they would hasten would be to secure 
the persons of the King the Queen and the Children ; and 
that these intentions were known. The Queen and the 
children were immediately sent abroad under the charge of 
Elfric and Elfwinus then the Bishop of London, (of which 
matters elsewhere). I suppose Elfric hastened to the Court 
from Thorney, — and by sea; and shortly afterwards the 
King followed his family into Normandy. 

We must assume that there was in 1013 that second destruc- 
tion of the Monastery of Burgh and flight of the abbot and 
monks which the Oxford edition of the Ingulfus relates; 



182 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

and it can hardly be disputed that some of the monks fled to 
Crowland, others to Ely, and others to Thorney. We shall 
show hereafter that if the alarm were transient only, their 
absence from the Abbey was not short, and that the damage 
done was not repaired for many years, though in the course 
of the reign of Canutus it was. I suppose it was repaired, 
under the management in the first instance, of Erwinus (for 
it seems that Erwinus was the Prior in 1013), and that 
relations were kept up amongst the Monks during Elfric's 
absence, but it is clear that they were not got together again 
for some years after he returned in 1016. 

If we consider the difference there was between Gunton's 
two copies of the Ingulfus inter se, and between them and the 
Mar sham Copy and the probable origin of the part of the Crow- 
land history which is said to have been written by Egelric, 
we may build up a theory as to the compilation which we 
have in Marsham's copy, the staple of the Oxford Edition. 

I suppose Ingulfus compiled the History down to the year 
1106, and that what he compiled and wrote was considerably 
more than the Oxford edition contains, and of which we are 
not informed ; — more which Egelric wrote, more relating to 
Elfric, and more relating to Burgh ; — that there was once a 
much larger Ingulfus than we have now, — that Be Caux had 
a copy of it, and left that copy in the library at Burgh, — 
that it remained there till it was removed a little before 
the coming of Henr) r the Eighth's Commissioners in 1539, 
and that it fell into Gunton's hands in James the First's 
time. This Copy (Guntons copy with the Continuation) might 
be a copy of the most complete Ingulfus there ever was. 

Gunton's other (a shorter) copy was no doubt originally in 
the same library at Burgh. It was very like but not pre- 
cisely like that copy called Cottons Copy which Savile 
published, and Savile's copy was most likely another of the 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 183 

Copies of the Ingulfus which once belonged to the Burgh 
library — (all made by the monks of that Church). 

The theory I advance is this : 

The Work of Ingulfus when it left his hands got into those 
of the normans at Canterbury ; and there it lay — how long we 
know not — -but it was there in Anselms time, the second 
norman archbishop. 

It no doubt contained, (amongst other particulars which, 
if carefully followed, would lead up to Elfric and to Burgh,) 
the particulars mentioned in Chapter X of the impious 
treatment of the remains of St. Kinehurga which were lying 
in the church of Burgh in 1013. (It seems that the danes 
danced over her body or rather her bones, and exhibited in 
other ways their contempt of the saints which lay buried 
there.*) 

As her remains were brought to Burgh in our abbot 
Elfric s time, (and certainly not before the year 992) Religion 
was not insulted at Burgh in 870 as Marsham's Copy in 
the Oxford edition states. 

It was seen, I suppose, after the work of Ingulfus was 
altered to a certain extent that this passage did not consist 
with norman views, and that it ought not to stand. 

There was an inadvertence, ' here, which was perceived a 
little too late. Marsham's copy, or an earlier copy from 
which Marsham's copy was made, was in existence and 
abroad and could not be recalled ; — (a fact which, a few years 
earlier, might not have been known.) 

Greater care was taken afterwards ; — another copy was 
made of the work of Ingulfus from which other copy have 
descended Gunton's shorter Copy and Cottons edited by 
Savile. In that Copy more deliberately made references to 

* Altaria omnia suffossa, * * * Sanctarum virginum Kyneburgse * * * 
pretiosa pignora pedibus conculcata, (Ox. Ed. Ingulf, p. 23). 



184 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

Elfric and to Burgh and other disasters like that in Marsham's 
Copy were in some measure prevented, for an end of the 
Ingulfus was made in 1085. 

But we see that, after all, one of Gunton's Copies had a 
continuation, which contained another account though still 
a fallacious account and under the date of 870, of what 
happened at Burgh in 1013. 

We collect that in 1539, when the coming of the King's 
commissioners was no longer doubtful, the clergy at 
Burgh endeavoured to make some provision for themselves, 
and that the abbey library, (of which not a word is said 
in the Inventory of its possessions,) was then disposed of, with 
a little secrecy no doubt, amongst the clergy and gentlemen 
in the neighbourhood. 

The principal purchaser was a Thomas Cotton, the father, 
I suppose, of Sir Robert Cotton who was at that time a boy 
in a school at Burgh kept by one Simon English. {Gunton's 
father and mother were William Gunton then the Chapter- 
clerk, and a daughter of the schoolmaster). 

The name of Thomas Cotton stands as the owner at the 
foot of the title page in several of the Manuscripts in the 
Museum — (Cotton's Library). I suppose Sir John Cotton's 
grandfather was at one time the owner also of the Manuscript 
Ingulfus which Savile published. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CKOWLAND ABBEY. 185 



CHAPTEK XXXV. 

FURTHER EXTRACTS FROM GUNTON'S COPIES OF THE IN- 
GULFUS, AND FURTHER REMARKS THEREON. — ELFRIC, 
PYTCHLEY, AND OTHER MATTERS CHIEFLY PERTINENT TO 
BURGH. 

To explain certain matters mentioned in Chapter XXXIV, 
let us return to the Extracts which Gunton made from his 
copies of the Ingulf us. 

" Now to Ingulfus again, who proceeds in his own story. — 
" Certain monks of Crowland who had secured themselves by 
flight into the Fens the danes being gone, returned to their 
monastery ; cleansed it from ashes and other pollutions as 
they could, and consulted to choose another Abbot which 
they did, — Godricus a reverend and religious man being he 
upon whom the Election passed : To whom there came 
Toretus Prior of Ancarige with his Sub-prior Tissa desiring 
Godricus that he would take some brethren with him and 
go over to Medeshamstead to give christian burial to the 
bodies of those monks which were there exposed to beasts 
and birds. 

" Godricus embracing the motion took some of his monks 
with him, amongst the rest the boy Turgarus, twelve years of 
age, — who being by the younger Sidroe saved, was by him 



186 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

taken to Medeshamstead, — and seeing the danes busy in 
getting their carriages out of the river Nen he stole away 
from them and returned to his Monastery of Crowland. 

" Abbot Godricus coming to Medeshamstead with much 
toil and pains gathered together the bodies of the slaughtered 
monks to the number of 84 and laid them all in one large 
grave in the middle of the Church-yard by the east front 
of the Monastery upon the feast of S. Cecilia," (November 
22nd), — " setting up over the body of the Abbot resting in 
the midst of his sons, a pyramidal stone three feet in height, 
three in length, and one in thickness, engraven with the 
pictures of the Abbot, and his monks about him, which 
stone in memory of the destroyed Monastery he named 



" And every year after so long as he lived he visited that 
place, pitching his Tent over the said stone and saying mass 
two several days for the souls of abbot Hedda and his monies." 



Remarks on the last preceding Extract. 

They were Monks of Burgh, not of Crowland, who saved 
themselves by flight into the Fens. 

The Abbot Godricus really was an Abbot of Crowland but 
in 1013 (not in 870). He was, as we have seen, the next 
Successor of Kenulfus in 1005 or 1006 ; and we gather from 
this passage that at the time of his succession he was a monk 
of Burgh. 

And Toretus and Tissa were real personages ; — though not a 
Prior and his Sub prior they were secular priests of a collegiate 
Church which was built by the children of King Penda, (the 
first christian Church in Mercia and the church mentioned 
in what is hereafter said of Bede,) (see Chapter XXXVII), 
Elfric calls Toretus who was a hermit Sanctus Torhredus. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 187 

These two priests christianized the people of Thorney and 
the neighbourhood and were both buried at Medeshamstead. 

It is a fair conjecture that an account of these matters 
(which we suppose was written by Egelric and imported 
into the Crowland history) contained as was usual in 
monkish writings, some story of a dream which the 
abbot Godric had, in which he was directed by the priests 
Toretus and Tissa to visit the desolated Convent in 
which they, the apparitions, were members of the first Con- 
gregation. 

The adulterators of the Crowland History preserved this 
mention of the boy Thurgar and of his escape to Crowland, 
because it served as an introduction to the tale of the 
SempectaB. 

" Turgarus " (says that false history), " the last of the 
Sempectse, was an inhabitant of the monastery of Crowland 
which was consumed in 870 and he lived to see the new 
monastery when it was rebuilt by Turketulus the ex-chan- 
cellor of king Edred and the first abbot after it was restored." 

It is very possible that Godric did collect and bury certain 
bodies which, monks and people together, amounted to 84. 
I suppose the stone which is now kept in the church at 
Burgh, and is said to be the stone which abbot Godric 
set up as a monument of Hedda and his people, was brought 
into the church when the Chapel of the Low was built, — the 
figures thereon are all monks; It is entitled to no respect 
as a memorial of the event of 1013, and I suppose it is an 
imposture carved and set up to help the nor man history of 
Burgh. 

The Kelation in Gunton is also remarkable in this particu- 
lar : The Abbot of Crowland buried the dead bodies in one large 
Grave in the middle of the Church-yard ;— pitched a tent upon, 
and consecrated the spot — and came and stayed two days 



188 A LIGHT ON 1 THE HISTORIANS, AND 

and repeated religious services there once a year as long as he 
lived : This also is a passage not to be rejected. 

If there were any of the monks of Burgh amongst the 
dead Godric's visit is perfectly credible. Elfric was away, 
and I suppose that amongst the dead there were personal 
friends of Godric in his younger days. This story agrees in 
several particulars with Mr. Stubbs's tables : 

Elfric when he came from Normandy in 1016 did not re- 
turn to Burgh ; — he went to and resided at Winchester, and 
Godric's visit was repeated once a year till he died (in 
January, 10 If). 

Egelric who would write these particulars at Burgh after 
it was rebuilt and after 1056, described what he himself had 
seen in and knew of the House which represented the House 
in which he wrote. There is perfect truth in what we read of 
the acts of the abbot Godric of Crowland if it be understood 
of the Godric who was abbot in 1013, the only Abbot Godric 
of Crowland. 

Let us here refer to what is said of a Highway in chapter 
XX, and proceed a little further with our extracts from 
Gunton. 

" The Highway then into Holland was through the same 
Church-yard" — (the Grave-Yard of Burgh) "having that 
monumental stone on the right hand and a cross of stone over 
against it erected also by Abbot Godricus on the left, that 
passers by in memory of the ruined monastery might re- 
member to pray for the souls of those there buried, and 
might abstain from sacrilegious rapines and demolitions of 
that place for His sake who was crucified." 

" Thus far Ingulf us :" 



With a few words more we will close our extracts from 
Gunton {for the f resent). 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 189 

After the above passage Gunton, speaking for himself thus 
continues his History of Burgh. 

" There was within these few years a door in the church 
having the picture of abbot Hedda and the king or captain 
of the danes as it were expostulating the business: and 
underneath were these four verses written in ancient saxon 
letters, as if they had been spoken by the Abbot 

" Fers mala pejora timeas ; cedasque rigori — 

Nee teneare mora, ne teneare mori : 
Hoc ne dabo domitus quod barbarus Ad vena qncerit, 

Da neeer immeritus — mors milii munus erit." 

Bid not Egelric write a life of Elfric ? 

And was not the writer of these verses present at the 
breaking-in ? 

They have persuaded me as well as Gunton that Elfric met 
and held an argument with the leader of the robbers; it 
seems the man threatened the Abbot's life but was induced by 
his looks or language, or by some other means, to spare him 
and the greater part if not every member of his family. 

To finish our remarks on Gunton's Story. 

It seems that when the strangers were gone Thurgar 
returned to Burgh from the place to which he had escaped. 
There he would find nobody whom he knew; — the abbot 
was at Thorney or on the sea about to go abroad, — the prior 
and some of the fugitives were at Ely, — and the sub-prior 
and ten of them at Crowland and therefore Thurgar did make 
his way to Crowland. 

It seems that the Chapel of the Low was a monument 
substituted for the stone now in the Minster at Burgh as 
mentioned above. 



Egelric would write his life of Elfric in english : — 

In a description of the matter in english the Grave where- 



190 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

in the dead were buried would be called the Low, a word now 
obsolete, but formerly in use amongst us to signify a grave. 

The Chapel of the Low is now part of a farm-house and 
stands near the Nen about a quarter of a mile east of the 
Monastery ; It is a locality which in Elfric's time and long 
afterwards was the Grave yard of the village: (near to 
this farm-house the embankment begins which was formerly 
called Elrich road.) 

Observe the words which Gunton cites from the book which 
he calls Ingulf us (just before the words — Thus far In gulf us.) 

" The highway then into Holland was through the same 
Church yard" $c. 

These words tell us that Gunton was now writing from 
something which Ingulfus could not have written; It was 
not properly either a part of that copy of his Ingulfus which 
had a continuation or of the copy which ended in 1085 and 
had not ; — it was Burgh history added to a copy of the Crow- 
land history. 

It is to be understood that the old Grave yard at Burgh 
was abandoned at the time when that Informant wrote whose 
book Gunton took up as a part of Ingulfus. — They first began 
to bury the town's people of Burgh within the walls of the 
monastery in the time of abbot Martin (1133 to 1155) — 
we may know therefore, that the writer of the addition to 
Gunton s Ingulfus wrote in or after Martin's time, — and I 
suppose the highway was diverted when the old cemetery 
was closed. 

We have spoken in preceding Chapters of one of Gunton s 
authorities of the name of Henry of Pytchley ; but whether 
he were the writer of those additions to the Ingulfus or not 
seems doubtful. 

Pytchley must have had access to the writings of Egelric 
when they were entire, — that is to say — to the writings of which 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 191 

Ingulf us made use; we see that Gimton's Pytchley wrote 
history, — in that history he mentioned incidents of Egelric's 
time, it seems he was an officer of the church of Burgh in 
the time of the abbot Ernulfus.* 

Stories of the burning of Medeshamstead in 870 and 
again in 1013 must have been current at Burgh when 
Pytchley wrote and long afterwards. 

Though it was not a necessary part of a history of Crowland 
an account of the destruction of Medeshamstead in 870 was 
made available as evidence of the antiquity of Crowland. It 
was made available but not by Ingulfus — he wrote, not the 
account of the burning in 870 (the only destruction men- 
tioned by Gunton and in Savile's Ingulfus) but the later story 
of the destruction in 1013, the story of the burning in 1013 
when Elfric was Abbot ; The truth may be collected with- 
out difficulty from the Oxford Ingulfus and from Gunton and 
Patrick. 

Both these events of 870 and of 1013 and the circumstances 
were matters of history in the time of Ingulfus but they are 
imperfectly told or his account is partly lost : we know he 
could not have written every part of the account which we 
have in Gunton. 



Gunton made another mistake respecting Elfric and Elfric's 
times. He assigned a much older date to the Abbot's house 
at Burgh than he ought. 

He tells us in page 4 of his Book in speaking of king 
Ethelred the brother of king Wulfhere (the founder of the 

* It is possible that Pytchley's History was in the form of additions 
to the work of Ingulfus ; he had probably ceased to write before 1133, in 
which case Gunton who would not have had what he says of the old Church- 
yard of Burgh from him might have it from some Continuator of the 
history which he wrote. 



192 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

first Church at Medeshanistead) that Ethelred became a 
Monk in 704, and that before 704 and whilst he was king, he 
built a house for the abbot of that monastery of Medesham- 
stead, and that it was always the residence of the abbots; 
Gunton gives a good description of this house. 

It was inhabited in 1541 by the last abbot when he 
exchanged the dignity of an Abbot for that of a Bishop, and 
it is the bishops palace now : There is no doubt that Elfric 
entertained the king Canutus and his Queen in this house ; 
— they were his frequent visitors. 

We have seen in the present day (and therefore we know) 
what the quarters were in which Elfric received those guests 
(a danish king and a norman guest) ; they were the really 
handsome and spacious palace which Gunton describes and 
which till the year 1864 retained more of its original form 
than it does now. 

But Gunton (misled by his authorities) was wrong as to the 
builder of this house and as to the age in which it was 
built ; It was not built by Ethelred the brother and successor 
of Wulfhere, and it had no existence before the year 1003 
in which year Elfric became Abbot. 

I suppose it was designed for him before he went into 
Normandy in 1013 and by some architect imported by the 
queen, and that it was built by the bounty of her first 
husband — that other king of the name of Ethelred. 

A year or two after I had returned to the pursuits which I 
had abandoned in 1830 and when I had made considerable 
progress with my work, — (it was soon after the death of 
the late bishop Davys), I found it was proposed to take 
this house down and build another on the same spot more in 
accordance with present tastes : I may own that I was sorry to 
hear it and was in some measure relieved when I heard it was 
to be partly rebuilt only ; still I was not wholly reconciled to 



ON THE HISTOEY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 193 

any alteration. — I was sorry to witness (as once or twice I did) 
the progress of the demolition and reconstruction of a part : 

So much for the weakness of an antiquary ; it would be wrong 
no doubt to permit old buildings to stand till they fall. 

We read that Wisdom crieth out in the streets and no man 
regardeth her ; I had said my say in 1830, — and, seeing that 
anything more which might be said of Elfric and his palace 
would be perfectly useless and, perhaps, offensive, I was silent. 

There can be no doubt as to the history of this house — 
and there can be none as to the head which framed, or the 
hand which penned the laivs of Ethelred and of Canutus — the 
laws which governed our people from the times of those 
kings till the coming of the normans. 

Before the year 1035 Elfric must have completed the com- 
pilation of those laws in the house which has so recently escaped 
a total demolition. 

Exigencies in our history make it certain that Canutus 
and the Queen resided on the banks of the Nen at a place 
now called Knuston and which I have named in a preceding 
chapter — it is some thirty or forty miles higher up the stream 
than Burgh, — But these are subjects for another part of my 
work. 



194 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 



CHAPTEE XXXVI. 

CONJECTURES AS TO THE ORIGIN OF THE COMBUSTION OF 
CROWLAND, AND REMARKS ON THE ACCOUNT OF IT IN THE 
INGULFUS. — THE CONTINUATION ATTRIBUTED TO PETER 
OF BLOIS. — THE ABBOT JOFFREDUS, AND DR. GISLEBERTUS 
AND THE PROFESSORS ODO TERRICUS AND WILLIAM. — 
ORIGIN OF CAMBRIDGE AND OF THE UNIVERSITY THERE. — 
ARCHBISHOP ANSELM AND THE ABBOT ERNULFUS OF BURGH. 
— THE ABBOT LONGCHAMP AND PETER OF BLOIS. 

There is this peculiarity in the printed Ingulfus; — about 
half the accounts of Hereward are given as parts of the 
history which Ingulfus wrote and the other half as parts of 
the continuation by Peter of Blois. But we can owe no 
part of what we know of Hereward to Peter of Blois. 

We see in eyery line that the account of the fire and its 
consequences was written by Ingulfus — too much of the 
story is inserted in the continuation. 

That fire is one of the mysteries in the Ingulfus. 

The cause of the destruction is so naturally told that it 
might satisfy and be accepted as true, but for passages in 
the earlier parts of the work which prepare us for the event 
before it happens, — at last, it is thus introduced : 

"In 1091, two years after the world had the great mis- 
fortune to lose my venerable Father Lanfranc, — always the 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 195 

sweetest of patrons to me," (&c), " that disaster happened 
which was foreshown by so many prodigies and foretold openly 
enough by frequent visions and apparitions, the total de- 
struction of this great Monastery by fire, the habitation 
of so many servants of God ;" — (Ingulfus says the fire was 
ferocious.) 

" Our plumber was repairing the roof of the church tower 
and when he left in the evening he did not put out the 
embers in his portable grate, but," (non ojperiens £c.) 
" thinking— fool-like — that if he left the ashes alive he could 
begin work again sooner in the morning," &c. &c. 

Could Ingulfus believe, (I think he did not) that this fire 
was a mere accident, and yet be so superstitious (and I think he 
was not) as to take it for a supernatural event, — a subject for 
portents, a retribution for we know not what but that it was 
often threatened for generations before ? I suppose this 
Story of a plumber was copied from an account of some 
other fire, and that there was a cause for this fire which 
was not produceable. 

Did it really happen after the outlaw Taillebois returned 
into the neighbourhood ? 

Was it the act of some incendiary ? was the perpetrator a 
servant whom Taillebois employed to destroy the place ? and was 
not Ingulfus forbidden to ascribe the act or any part therein 
or any knowledge thereof, to this cousin of king Kufus ? 

Or, was it the act of some norman Monk admitted into the 
monastery and made spiteful by the monks of the place who 
were english, and because Ingulfus detained him against his 
Will? 

So many considerations enter into this question that it 
must be postponed for the present. 



Let us now leave Ingulfus and the part of the History 

o 2 



190 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

which he wrote, and proceed to the Continuation after 
Ingulfus. 

Third part of the Crowland History. (Subsequent to the 
Death of Ingulfus.) 

At the end of one of Saviles Editions of Ingulfus he 
printed a fragment (as an appendix), a fugitive sheet which 
related a part of the History of Crowland, — and added in a 
Note that it was uncertain who the Author was. This frag- 
ment is a material piece : — In the Oxford Edition it is inserted 
in the body of the Continuation to which it belongs. 

The Continuation relates that when Ingulfus died (in 1109), 
he was succeeded by a Norman named Joffredus, the Prior 
of St. Evreux, for whom the King had sent by the advice of 
Alan Brun his Steward and put in the place of Ingulf us, and 
that he arrived at Crowland on Palm Sunday 1109. 

. Mention is then made of one Gislebertus an S.T.P. : — Gisle- 
bertus had been a fellow Monk with Joffredus at St. Evreux 
and we collect that Joffredus had invited him to Crowland. 
Three other educated persons of the names of Odo, Terricus 
and William are also mentioned, — of them it is said that they 
were Monks who had followed Gislebertus into England; — 
they had followed him from Normandy long before 1109. 

Gislebertus before he came into this Kingdom had left 
Evreux; he went to Bee and we understand that it was 
from Bee that he came over to this Country in 1082 (in the 
time of Lanfranc). He was soon afterwards made Abbot of 
Westminster and he held that Abbey as long as he lived. Odo 
Terricus and William may have followed Gislebertus from Bee. 

I shall be able to prove in the course of my work that 
William, the last of the three Followers here mentioned, was 
the man whom we call William of Malmesbury. 

Previous to 1107 and in the time of the Archbishop 



ON THE HISTORY OF OROWLAND ABBEY. 197 

Anselni the before-named Ernulfus was the Prior of the 
Archbishop's Monastery in Canterbury {Christ- Church) ; and of 
Ernulfus the same Malmesbury in his Church History also says 
he was originally a Fellow-student with Lanfranc at Bee and 
was afterwards one of the Monhs of Beauvais; that he was 
discontented with the morals of the brethren at Beauvais and 
was invited to Christ-Church by Lanfranc, then recently 
made Archbishop : — (Ernulfus was one of the Monks of that 
Church but it seems he did not obtain any office there until 
after Lanfranc's death, — we may see, however, that he was 
Lanfranc s Secretary.) 

In 1107 Ernulfus was made Abbot of Burgh, and before 
that time he must have had some knowledge of Odo, Terricus 
and William. 

When Gislebertus and his three attendants arrived in 
this country the Doctor was seeking preferment for him- 
self and did not want them ; but as they would all need 
patronage, and the other three might hope to be admitted into 
Christ-Church or some other Monastery it is probable that 
as soon as they landed Gislebertus and they made their way 
together to Canterbury to pay their respects to Lanfranc. 

Ernulfus must have had relations (friendly or unfriendly) 
with Ingulfus as early as 1085 — with Gislebertus from the 
time of his coming in 1082, — and with Joffredus from the 
Season of Lent in the year 1109. 



According to the statements in the Oxford Edition Peter 
of Blois took up the History of Crowland after Ingulfus and 
continued it to the early part of King Stephen's time, — (King 
Stephen began to reign at Christmas 1135.) I propose to 
show that Peter of Blois wrote no part of this Continuation 
and a few observations may be made upon the form in 
which it is published. 



198 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

To repeat what has been said, there is no doubt that much 
of the Continuation ought to be added to the part of the 
History which belongs to Ingulfus much of what is said 
(for instance) of Hereward's Conflicts with Taillebois and the 
Abbot Toroldus. 

The alterations which were made in the History in this 
respect were made after the death of Ingulfus and chiefly in 
the part which ends in 1106 ; that is, in the Work of Ingulfus. 



The Epistle of the Abbot Henricus de Longo-Campo to Petrus 
Blesensis with which the Continuation opens begins thus : 

" Henry Be Longchamp, a Servant of God in the Monastery 
of Crowland, an unworthy Abbot," (&c.) " to the mostfriendly 
the Master Peter of Blois, Archdeacon of Bath and Vice 
Chancellor of our Lord the King." (&c.) 

By this Epistle the said Peter " is requested to correct 
where it may want correction a History of Crowland written 
by the Abbot Ingulfus (and now sent for that purpose)," 
according to the Memorandums and the Schedules which were 
transmitted therewith ; and also " to continue the Relation of 
the said History to our own times, for it is a Work which dis- 
closes clearly and fairly many of the particulars of former ages." 

In the course of this letter the Writer (Longchamp,) says 
he hopes shortly to be coming to the Court on certain busi- 
ness, and will bring with him certain Charters and Muniments 
which the "Dominus Wulf sinus the Prior of our House 
and Anscotus the Sub-Prior and the Dominus John of 
Freston our Proctor think it may be necessary to insert in 
the History," of this Master Peter was to judge though " they 
were learned beyond others in the affairs of the Monastery, 
were all familiar Friends of Peter's, and saluted him." 

The Archdeacon, in his answer, promises (reluctantly as it 
seems) to attend to the Kequest. He says, " I will endea- 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 199 

vour to find an opportunity to continue the History of your 
Monastery so learnedly collected and digested by the Abbot 
Ingulfus, and to preserve as well as I can the style in which 
it is written although I dare not compare rny Talents with 
those of that distinguished Man," &c, " but inasmuch as the 
History, as is often the Case, has been twisted and confused 
by inexperienced Scribes I will endeavour, in compliance 
with your wishes to correct Errors as truth requires, and 
to modify and make it a consistent Work, and I will put the 
parts which ought to precede, and the parts which ought to 
follow, in their proper places. 

"I shall begin, therefore, to write another Book as a 
supplement to the Work of Ingulfus, so that his Work may 
be the first part of the History ; — mine which is to be called 
the second, is to follow but altogether apart from his. I 
shall preface my Work with your letter, and add thereto this 
letter to you." 

These are sufficient Extracts from Longchamp's Letter to 
Peter and the Answer. 



It is to be collected from the History as it is continued, 
that the Buildings which were burned down in 1091 were 
but partly rebuilt when Jofifredus came, but that the zeal of 
Ingulfus had done Wonders. The damage sustained was so 
far repaired within the next few years that a part of it was 
made inhabitable and a College again instituted ; The ruins 
were converted again into a Monastery long before the 
Church was finished, and we hear but little as yet of the 
Officers subsequent to the Fire. 

I shall hereafter show that before the death of Ingulfus 
Lanfranc and Ingulfus and Anselm and Ernulfus had eman- 
cipated this Monastery of Crowland from its subjection to 
the Abbots of Burgh. 



200 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

The Continuator then speaks of the progress of the renas- 
cent Monastery after the coming of Joffredus. 

" The Dormitory and Refectory being completed as well as 
a tall Church which looked down upon, and was to be seen 
from every part of the surrounding Woods and the principal 
care of the Work which remained to be done being committed 
to the Prior Odo, and to Brother Arnold who was a lay 
Monk and a most skilful Master of the masonic Art [ars 
cementaria~\* the Abbot Joffredus, who had other business in 
hand left Crowland, went to Court and procured that Con- 
firmation of the Charters which was granted to the Monastery 
and is dated from Oxford 1114 in the 14th year of the King's 
Reign," — (Henry the First.) 

It does not sufficiently appear why this application as to 
the Charters was deferred till 1114 and it is to be doubted 
whether there ever was any such Charter,— some of the parti- 
culars which are said to have happened at Court cannot be 
true: They seem to me as extravagant as that scene in Pere- 
grine Pickle which describes the meeting of Pickle and the 
Doctor Morgan (a Character in Roderick Random, one of 
Smollett's earlier Novels). 

" And whilst the Abbot waited for the Charter of Confirma- 
tiou, (the King had signed it. but it was still in the hands of 
the Chancellor) two most illustrious Lords the King's 
Nephews (his Sister s Children and who were just come over 
from France) came into the presence Chamber, — they were 
the most noble Theobald Earl of Blois and the Lord Stephen 
his Cousin (a handsome young man and afterwards King of 
England) ; These lords were some time before scholars at 
Orleans and disciples of the Master Joffredus, and now with 



* A freemason ? or, simply, as Mr. Riley understands these words, 
a skilful Builder or Architect? 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 201 

most loving kisses [oseulis gratissimis] they embraced their 
old Instructor the sweetest of Masters," &c. 

In 1114 the lord Stephen of Blois was nine years old and we 
shall be right if we add the Deed of 1114, — King Henry's 
Confirmation, to the other fabricated Deeds by which the 
Abbots of Crowland held their Lands : the date of this pre- 
tended Confirmation and the place at which it is said to have 
been signed and sealed {Oxford) are inconsistent with other 
parts of the History continued by Peter of Blois, and it will 
be seen in my account of Burgh that King Henry neither 
countenanced the Usurpations of the Canterbury Archbishops, 
nor those of their Servants. 

It is a principal part of our business with the Continuation to 
discuss the contents of the two letters which have been 
mentioned, — the letter written (as it is said) to Peter of Blois, 
and the answer thereto. 

In the first of these letters the writer requests Peter to read 
the History which he sends him — (the History written by Malmes- 
bury and continued by Ingulfus), and to read also some other 
papers and parchments sent therewith ; — and then the Abbot 
requests this Vice-Chancellor to continue the History with the 
help of those other papers from the point where Ingulfus left it. 
And Peter is informed that the Abbot is coming to Court 
(the Vice- Chancellor s place of abode) and that when he came 
he would bring certain documents with him which ought (as 
he believed) to appear in the History : a Life of St. Guthlac 
(the patron Saint of Crowland) was also particularly desired. 
Peter in his answer is courteous enough with but one 
exception ; — he says that to make anything out of the materials 
sent seemed about as easy as to get honey out of a stone, but 
that he will do his best. 

And we are then presented with the Continuation of Ingulfus 
by Peter of Blois. 



202 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 



CHAPTER XXXVII. 

A WOKD ON THE PRIEST BEDE (THE HISTORIAN) AND ON 
MALMESBURY. — EFFECTS OF THE ELOQUENCE OF DR. GISLE- 

BERTUS AND THE THREE OTHER PROFESSORS. EFFECTS 

OF THE PREACHING OF THE ABBOT JOFFREDUS. — JOF- 
FREDUS SENDS OUT OTHER ENGLISH AND NORMAN MONKS. 

We have accounts of our people — of their acts and habits — 
which were written by two celebrated men in times remote 
from each other and remote also from ours. It happens 
either that they did not say enough of themselves, or that what 
they said of themselves is lost, for their personal histories 
though often the subject of enquiries appear to be very 
little known. There is more error than truth in our 
notions of what kind of men they were. 

These two Writers pass by the names of the Venerable Bede 
and William of Malmesbury. Bede was so famous a man in 
Malmesbury's time, and of such high repute as the Father of 
english History that Malmesbury ardently wished to be classed 
with him and to obtain a share of his Eenown: and this 
second man's talents were such, that notwithstanding his 
inferiority and his manifold defects his desires have not 
wholly failed. His praises also have been sung, and by 
Historians and Critics more worthy than he, — but who were 
mistaken in their man. Indeed Malmesbury, like a roman 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 203 

poet in our english version, might have said of himself One 
half of round eternity is mine. 

A few particulars of Malmesbury appear from time to 
time in my other Chapters, and more in Chapter XL, — a 
word here on the other of the two, Bede : 

Bede and the Abbey of St. Albans are subjects which I wish 
to reserve but it may now be said that Bede, one of the early 
christians in England after Saint Alban's time, was not a 
Benedictine Monk, as has been generally believed ; — he was 
a secular Priest, a Member of the first Collegiate Church in 
Mercia ; — a Church which stood on the spot whereon Elfrics 
Abbey afterwards stood, the Church of Medeshamstead, the 
Peterborough of Bede' 's day and ours: 

My Book of 1830 contains a copy of a Manuscript Sheet in 
the Museum Library, a latin version of Elfric's List of the 
Graves of Saints buried in England ; The List has been cor- 
rupted (of course,) corrupted and materially damaged by some- 
body who was not at all acquainted with the History of Burgh ; 

After I had printed that latin version I found in the same 
Library another Manuscript, the original of the latin in our 
own tongue, (that is to say in Elfrics english.) I have some 
reason to think that piece was entire, and have much wished 
to see it again but since that time I have not been able to 
find it. 

Here are five words of the latin version which show where 
the body of Bede was laid : 

In Gyrvum — Sanctus Beda presbyter ; 

These words tell half the Story which I have to tell now. 
My readers, if I had any in 1830, did not understand them 
and I did not then properly understand them myself. 



We have seen in the last Chapter that according to the 



204 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

Continuation Odo was the Prior of the House in 1114, when 
Joffredus went to the Court at Oxford about his Charters ; 
(it is by no means certain that he did not go to the King 
about that time and met with a rebuff.) 

As everything* was committed to Odds care jointly with 
brother Arnold's during the Abbot's absence we may suppose 
that this competent man Odo had been some years at Crow- 
land ; the Prior in 1114 ought to have been in the Abbey in 
the time of Ingulfus, and so it seems he was : 

In the Crowland History during the time of Ingulfus there 
are copies of several Deeds chiefly of the nature of Deeds of 
Sale,— alienations of Abbey Lands, all of the date of 1091 
and Sales which seem to have been necessary to enable 
Ingulfus to rebuild as much of the Abbey as he did : 

The first signature in every one of these Deeds is that of 
the Abbot Ingulfus, and the next, is always, Odo the Prior : 
Odo was the Prior then in 1091, the time of the Fire. 

There seems to be no difficulty whatever in the belief of 
this part of the History, — it is a humble confession of the 
abject poverty to which the Abbot was reduced in 1091. 

According to the History Joffredus when he came to Crow- 
land- (in 1109) found Odo there (the Head of the house) and 
that the Treasury was exhausted, — Terrieus was then the 
Prior of the Abbot Ernulfus at Burgh: — and I suppose 
that Ernulfus had something to do with a meeting of Joffre- 
dus and Gislebertus in the Hall at Crowland and the intro- 
duction of Odo's two friends Terrieus and William. 

The same year (1109) Joffredus sent the Dominus Gislebertus 
with Odo, Terrieus, and William to a Manor House which he 
had at Cottenham near Cambridge where they were to take 
up their abode and were to go into the town (Cambridge), 
and endeavour to collect money to finish the works. 

And w r e read that Gislebertus and the three last-named per- 



ON THE HISTOKY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 205 

sons went to Cottenham accordingly ; and that they went 
daily to Cambridge, — and that in a barn in that town they 
entertained the town's-people with discourses upon various 
branches of knowledge. 

The relation is very clear : — They invited the men and 
women of the Town and Neighbourhood to come and hear 
what they had to say, and many came ; so many that after 
a time, in the second year of these gatherings, neither a 
Bam nor any large Souse nor any Church in Cambridge 
was large enough for the audience. 

In that ham, first, and afterwards (as it seems) in the open 
air, Odo, Terricus and William had each of them his hearers 
at different times of the day, " the same as they do at 
Orleans." 

"Early in the morning Brother Odo who was a rarus 
Satirieus and also a Grammarian, (a mountebank, — a buffoon, 
as it seems, or simply a humorist — a grammarian who was 
fond of a joke) read Grammar after Priscian and Bemigius. 

" At a later hour (at primes) Brother Terricus who was au 
acute Sophist, read to a more advanced Class and made 
comments upon Aristotle's logic, according to the Isagogues 
of Porphyry and Averrhoes ; and, at the third hour of the day, 
Brother William the other of the three taught his Class 
Rhetoric out of the flowers of Tully and Quintilian. 

" Every Sunday and on Holidays Master Gislebertus preached 
God's word in some Church in the Town." 

Of this exclusively religious Professor Gislebertus we are 
told that he was a novice in english speech but ready and 
sound enough in latin and in his own language, and that 
he principally disputed about the Errors of the Jews. 

On Holidays learned men and more especially Priests 
congregated to hear theology from Gislebertus, and his Ex- 
positions of the sacred pages. 



206 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

Of these Inquirers into the Scriptures we are told that some 
were Jews, but that they were not all so blinded with Jewish 
infidelity as to refuse to believe ; some of them did believe, 
renounced their Errors, and entered with repentance and 
remorse into the bosom of the Church. 

" This Mission" says the Continuator " cost Crowland 
nothing ; on the contrary the Industry of the Lecturers and 
Preachers brought no small advantage to the Monastery : — 
100 marks were transmitted from those parts in one year 
towards expenses for the new Buildings." 



I suppose the Dominus Gislebertus (who is constantly de- 
scribed as Sacrm Theologize Professor) was the first Doctor of 
Divinity ever seen at Cambridge ; — Odo, Terricus and William 
the other Lecturers are called philosopliici Theoreumates ; (it is 
said they were perfect in other primitive sciences.) 

As Odo the Prior of the House was sent out as a Lecturer 
I suppose he had little to do in the unfinished Monastery. 

It may be that in the connecting the Continuation with 
the earlier part of the History the Sheets were misplaced 
and dates disarranged, if not the Lectures were continued till 
1111 or 1112 for — after an account of the success of that 
mission — it is said under the date 1112 that in those days 
"the Lord added still more to the Abbot's prosperity by 
wonderful operations at Waltheofs Tomb: — the blind were 
mercifully made to see, the deaf to hear, the lame to walk, 
and the dumb to speak." 

The Continuation mentions the preaching of the Abbot 
Jofredus himself. It is said (this may be meant of his preach- 
ing when he first came) " that he was very methodical in his 
style; — that when he visited his Children he gave out his 
discourses very clearly, and drew people together (both men 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 207 

and women) without number. These people were inhabitants 
of places in the Neighbourhood of Crowland, and though they 
understood him very little as he spoke in latin or french, 
they were yet frequently moved to tears by the grace of his 
manner and the power of God's word : and that when he 
had finished his discourses and was about to depart three or 
four of the hearers (not always ecclesiastics but some of 
them merely literate persons) would follow him and desire to 
be made Monks: — and these he either took into his own 
Monastery or gave them letters which got them admitted 
into other Monasteries — Burgh, Thorney, and other places 
more remote." 

The Abbot JofTredus was pleased with the results of the 
mission to Cottenham for he sent out others. His Mission- 
aries begged everywhere. 

" Joffredus sent to other places also, besides Cambridge, to 
collect money for the Buildings. He sent out eight of his 
Monks (that is to say), the Brothers JEgelmer and Nigellus 
into France and Flanders ; Brothers Fulco and Ogerus into 
the northern Counties ; Swetman and the younger Wulf sinus 
into Denmark and Norway, and Augustinus and Osbertus 
into Wales." 

We have a copy of the Brief which was given to these 
Collectors ; — a Reader who, advanced in years was a Church- 
warden forty years ago may see therein that it is the 
same in form as the Church and Fire Briefs which were 
then given out at one Visitation to be read in the Parish 
Church between the Prayers and the Sermon, and returned 
with its produce at the next. (TJie produce at the time I 
speak of and till the Custom was discontinued was paid over 
to the Ordinary, and by him to Stevenson and Salt, the 
Bankers in Lombard Street.) 

Joffredus sent also (p. 115) three other Monks, Elsinus, Fre- 



208 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

gistus and Harold (of whom Elsinus was to be the Chief) to 
another of his Manors near Stamford — as well to get contri- 
butions for Crowland as to warn the people of Stamford 
against the Jews. But this Mission is not said to have been 
so successful as the Lectures at Cambridge. 

And he sent two others, Waldevus and Leofwinus, to his 
Manor at Wellingborough ; — these two were also to make 
collections at Higham and Northampton. (Waldevus was the 
next Abbot of Crowland after Joffredus.) 

The results of these labours throughout England and in 
countries abroad, including the towns and villages in the 
neighbourhood of Crowland, were quite satisfactory. " Money 
was brought into the Monastery daily and the Abbot was 
thus enabled to finish the new Monastery." 

It is observable that nothing is said of the use by Ingulfus 
of any such means for raising funds (but some of the Abbey 
Lands were sold and perhaps until after his death there were 
still both Money and Valuables in the Chest). 



ON THE HISTORY OF CKOWLAND ABBEY. 209 



CHAPTER XXXVIII. 

CAMBRIDGE IX THE EARLY NORMAN TIMES. — EPITAPH ON 
GISLEBERTUS. 

We have no other account of the origin of the University of 
Cambridge than that given in the Continuation of the Crow- 
land History. In what is said therein of the Town of Cam- 
bridge we have an idea of a Town containing several Churches 
and full of Inhabitants many of them affluent and intelligent, 
or at least, willing, and not too ignorant, to learn ; Some of 
them Ecclesiastics, and some (I suppose a few only) Jeivs. 

Let us suppose that this town on the banks of the Cam, 
and in the marshes of East Anglia was, soon after 1066, a 
place wherein english people congregated who were wealthy 
as in a place comparatively safe : during Hereward's time 
the Normans would not be likely to trouble them there ; 
and we may understand that in the next generation (about 
the time of the death of Ingulfus) the place had grown in 
size and into importance. If 'the people of Cambridge about 
1110 resembled the people living within eight or ten miles 
of the Cambridge of 50 years ago I can vouch on my own 
knowledge that they were living at their ease in that 
retreat, — spent their substance freely, and drank and were 
merry notwithstanding the evils of the times. 

p 



210 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

Such a state of society would have its usual accompani- 
ments. The elderly men, sometimes dyspeptic and melan- 
choly, were disposed to be devout ; and the young though in 
want of nothing really necessary would then as now indulge 
in extravagance and folly : Many would get into debt ; the 
laws against debtors were severe, more severe than they are 
now;— To avoid punishment money would be borrowed to 
satisfy their creditors, and bonds given for it which were 
made payable at a future time : Legal engagements of this 
kind would be very common and often undertaken without 
a thought that the time for payment must come. It was 
always possible that when it did come such Engagements 
would be honourably met and the speculation was a tempta- 
tion to the Jews. 

The denunciations of what was called the perfidy of the 
Jews (whatever that might mean) were the burthen of a 
great part of the literature of the day ; — Peter of Blois wrote 
several pieces on the subject. 

By the Laws which the Normans (I believe) introduced, 
Usury was rigorously proscribed and if detected, as rigor- 
ously punished, and therefore, money-lending was a dangerous 
trade ; perhaps there were few lenders except the Jews. 

It is not at all unlikely that the preachings of Gislebertus 
for their conversion were as effectual as we are told they 
were ; Their convictions would be helped something by their 
fear of the Law. 

But how was it that people could part even with superfluous 
wealth at the asking of men like Joffredus and his Lecturers, 
whose dialects and arguments they could not well understand ? 
— I suppose the Professors when they lectured in the Barn took 
money for admission and so enticed an audience ; and once 
admitted every one gave something of course. 

The advocates were zealous beyond measure — very importu- 



ON THE HISTORY OP CROWLAND ABBEY. 211 

nate ; and it was a case of conscience and normans were not 
accustomed to be denied. 

As to the preaching of Joffredus (which it seems was 
confined to his own neighbourhood), we learn that his 
sermons were principally what we call Charity Sermons; It 
is not said that his hearers were all english and we may 
reckon that for a year or two after he began to preach not 
only the Professors of ivhom we have spoken but also such 
other foreigners as were monks of Crowland, Thorney or 
Burgh were sent to hear him, or if not sent, they would take 
care to be on the spot as often as his intentions to preach 
were known. It was men like these, I suppose, who kindled 
the devotion and elicited the contributions of the rest. 

The professor Gislebertus is worthy of further mention. 

According to that part of our english Chronicles which is 
attributable, I think, to Nicholas of Worcester, Gislebertus died 
Abbot of Westminster on the 6th of December, 1117. — The 
last words of the events of that year in the latin Chronicle 
of Florence of Worcester say the same — Obiit et Gilebertus 
Abbas Westmonasterii. 

Browne Willis (Mitred Abbots, Vol I. p 201) also mentions 
him, and says incorrectly that he was a Prior of Westminster, 
(not Abbot). 

If I rightly understand this author Willis the Epitaph on 
Gislebertus which is a part of his account of him was in the 
Cloisters at Westminster in James the Second's time but 
was not perfectly legible ; — and that Henry Wharton took a 
Copy. 

It seems that Gislebertus succeeded Vitalis who died Abbot 
of Westminster on the 19th June, 1082. Willis's account of 
Gislebertus is this : — 

" (lislebert, formerly a Monk of Bee in Normandy and the 
Prior of this place died 6th Dec. 1114, [1117?]: — he was 

p 2 



212 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

buried here under a marble in the south side of the Cloister, 
whereon his Effigy was cut and had this Epitaph — 

Hie pater insignis, genus altum, virgo senexque, 
Gisleberte, jaces ; Lux, via, duxque ; — Tuis 
Mitis eras, Justus, prudens, fortis, moderatus ; 
Doctus quadriviis nee minus in triviis : — 
— Sic tamen ornatus, nece, sexta luce Decembris 
Spiramen caslo reddis, et ossa solo. 

(E collectis E ci Wharton.) 

What is here said of the virgin purity of the life of Gislebertus 
is worth a thought ; — how apt the allusion also to his habits 
as a preacher in the open air ! 

I suppose, as we are told that he was an ex-monk of 
Bee, Joffredus his fellow-Monk was also a Monk of Bee before 
he was Prior of St. JEvreux. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 213 



CHAPTEK XXXIX. 

GISLEBERTUS THE CONTINUATOR OF THE HISTORY ATTRI- 
BUTED TO PETER OF BLOIS THE MARSHAM COPY OF 

THE INGULF US A WORK OF THE TIME OF THE ABBOT 
LONGCHAMP. 

Ingulfus knew very little of our Church History when he 
came here from Fontanelle ; and he was not acting in concert 
with Lanfranc when his Charters were laid before the King 
in 1076 ; it is possible that at that time the Influence of the 
Abbot Toroldus at Court was greater than Lanfranc s. 

But when in 1085 the forged Charters were produced before 
the king's Commissioners, and their scribes the compilers of 
the Doomsday Book I suppose these miserable proofs of the 
Claims of the Church of Crowland were brought forward in 
Lanfranc s presence and had his support. 

It is hardly necessary to say that after the commission of 
such frauds Ingulfus was bound to maintain them ; this he 
was able to do effectually as long as Lanfranc lived, — and 
he could not very well be honest after Lanfranc's death, — he 
was still bound to make good against Taillebois and all other 
Gainsayers the titles shown by his Deeds; the Bevenues 
of his House depended upon his firmness in this respect; 
and besides, he professed to be a religious man. 



214 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

The letter of the Abbot Longchamp to Peter of Blois and the 
answer thereto, must contain particulars which have been 
materially altered since they were written. 



Peter of Blois might not as a Writer be inferior to 
Ingulfus but he was not therefore the most proper person to 
continue the History, — He had no local knowledge of Crow- 
land. 

Mr. Biley, who doubts if Peter were the author of the Con- 
tinuation observes that none of the collectors of his Works say 
that he wrote any Booh of that kind, but that yet we are asked 
to believe that this Archdeacon, — this Vice-Chancellor of our 
Lord the King,—Prothonotary of the whole Kingdom, — Patron 
of all the liberal arts, — and most eminent and eloquent of men — 
was requested, towards the end of his life, by his dear friend 
the then Abbot of Crowland to continue the History ; and 
that he consented and did it. 

The Abbot Joffredus in his instructions to Peter how to 
write exhibits with ridiculous parade a knowledge of the titles, 
at least, of a considerable part of the literature of Greece 
and Rome. This looks like superficial learning. Was it 
superficial learning ? or was it the effect of a special design, 
and an insinuation only, that the Continuator was OdoP I 
think the Continuation really indicates the hand of a Gram- 
marian and that, though Odo may not have written it, 
great alterations were made therein after it was written, and 
Odo may have been the man who made them. 

If we are to believe all that is said in these two letters 
the work of Ingulfus was in the Library at Crowland when 
the application to Peter was made. The meaning of the 
language of that application is that the History was depraved 
at that time, and that not only a Continuation was desired 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 215 

but that the original text should be restored; — it was con- 
tinued, — but not by Peter of Blois. 

What was the Truth of the matter ? 

One of the successors of Joffredus was the Abbot Robert, — 
Robert died in the year 1190 whereupon — in the words of 
the history (p. 457) — " Henrieus, Eveshamiensis Monachus, in 
abbatem electus est." Robert was succeeded as an Abbot by 
Henry-oi-Longchamp, a Monk of Evesham. (This Monk of 
Evesham had a Brother who at that time was the Bishop 
of Ely, and also held certain Offices in the State.) 

Abbot Henry was Abbot from 1190 till the time of his 
death, 1236 ; — he was a cotemporary and it may be a friend 
of the before-named Peter of Blois. Peter who in 1177 was 
an Archdeacon of Bath was subsequently Archdeacon of 
London and died in the year 1200. 

But it was the Abbot Joffredus (not Henry of Longchamp), 
who, not knowing what to make of the Crowland History in 
the state in which it was when he came to Crowland, sent 
it with other writings, not authentic but prepared under the 
authority of Ingulfus, and various other Documents which 
seemed to relate to that Monastery to some friend of his own 
or to some needy scholar of the day whom he thought com- 
petent, and from whom he had reason to expect a favour or a 
service. Such a poor author or friend might very well say 
that he would endeavour to do what was asked as well as he 
could, but was afraid his time and labour would be thrown 
away. 

It is likely that some such a letter as that from Longchamp 
to Peter of Blois ivas written, but by Joffredus and to Gisle- 
bertus — (written we will suppose not by Joffredus himself but 
by a servant of his), and also the answer thereto ; but it is not 
likely that they were written in the style in which we have 
them in print. 



216 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

The Kepresentative of Peter of Blois promised to do what 
was required and it is possible enough that the Manuscript 
which Ingulfus compiled and the other documents which were 
sent therewith came back to Crowland with a Continuation — 
they would not come back untouched ; — a Continuation as 
it is called was written (though it relates but little of the 
History after the death of Ingulfus), and afterwards, and before 
the papers were deposited in the chest or place where they 
were expected to remain Odo took the trouble to alter them 
in language of his own ; — May he not have wholly written 
both the letter and the answer f 

The Manuscripts in Abbey Libraries seem to have been 
almost always in the hands of Copyists; and I imagine that 
when Copies were made of Histories which contained fables 
the Copies were not always and in all respects copies but that 
names and dates and other particulars were often altered and 
the fables renewed to suit the times. 

And that in the days of the Abbot Longchamp and after 
the death of Peter of Blois A^ariations were made in the Manu- 
script which was the History in the time of the Abbot Joffredus. 

The name of Odo appears as the Prior, was the history 
renewed at that time by an experienced man ? 

We propose then to substitute the name of Gislebertus as 
the Continuator for the name of Peter of Blois. 

The letter of Eequest which has been mentioned must be a 
letter which Joffredus wrote to Gislebertus. 

Gislebertus made Abbot of \Yestrninster in 1082 came 
amongst us twenty-eight years before Joffredus ; he would be 
likely, compared with Joffredus, to have a very fair knowledge 
of our history and of our Tongue ; if he had not there 
would have been no reason in the request. 

We read that Joffredus was a Master and Teacher in the 
university of Orleans; the writer of the Continuation was 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 217 

acquainted with the system of teaching in that University. 
— May we not understand from this that the Continuator 
graduated in that place, — and as the Abbots Joffredus and 
Gislehertus were fellow-monks at St. Evreux and probably at 
Bee also were they not fellow -students at Orleans ? 

It is not at all incredible, — indeed what is more likely than 
that in or soon after 1110 Joffredus was willing to renew his 
acquaintance with Gislehertus and that as a step thereto, he 
wrote to and asked him to revise, only, perhaps, and make 
consistent (not to continue) the History which Ingulfus had 
brought down to the year 1006 ? that Gislehertus promised to 
comply ? and to some extent, complied ? He wrote (wholly or 
in part) what is said of himself and the other professors, and 
little else, and what Gislehertus left unfinished and could 
not be expected to finish Odo finished. 

It was probably a letter from Joffredus which induced 
Gislehertus to make this visit to Crowland in 1110, and it 
seems that he was followed again to Crowland by Terricus 
and William, two of the three necessitous persons who had 
followed him from Normandy ; Odo, the other, was then the 
Prior at Crowland. 

Joffredus wanted funds for the Work at Crowland, and the 
Mission of the four Professors to Cottenham seems almost a 
matter of course ; — objections to the substitution of Gisle- 
hertus for Peter of Blois seem to vanish : Suppose that at 
the termination of the lectures at Cambridge Terricus was 
sent to Burgh for his reward? he was not a stranger at 
Burgh, for according to Hugo he Avas the Sacrist or one of 
the Sacrists of Burgh in the year 1099 and according to the 
same Hugo he Avas the Prior of Burgh under the Ahhot 
Ernulfus, (I suppose the Prior of the norman Monks :) His 
name in Burgh History is written Turicus. 



218 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

As often as the History of Crowland was recopied between 
the times of Jojfredus and Longchamp alterations would be 
made therein. (Ingulfus knew that London was not a beautiful 
City in his time, — he never said it was.) 

We must reckon that a Copy ivas made in Longchamp s 
time and that every new copy was intended to supersede the 
last. 

I suppose that in the normanized History as Ingulfus left 
it the first Abbot of Crowland was said to have been a 
monk of the name of Kenulfus, but it was also said and 
falsely that he was made Abbot in King EtheTbaWs time : 
Kenulfus who was made the first Abbot in Edgar's time was 
but removed in the History not expelled, for though he was 
made to serve as an Abbot of Burgh he was retained as the 
first Abbot of a visionary Crowland. 

The object intended to be effected by the transplantation 
of Kenulfus into the Burgh History may be thus ex- 
plained : 

Though Elfric in 1003 succeeded Eldulfus at Burgh (the 
first Abbot after the Restoration) he was not to appear as 
an abbot of Burgh, and Kenulfus for whom there was no 
room at Burgh before the end of the Reign of Eldulfus, was 
put in his place. 

It will be my business hereafter to show that this piece of 
nor man History was a device of the Abbots Joffredus of 
Crowland and Ernulfus of Burgh — fellow-servants of the 
Canterbury Archbishops. 

Until the time of the Abbot Longchamp, Kenulfus was 
probably described in all the Copies as an Ex-monk of 
Abingdon (which he was) but when in Longchamp's time 
another co r was made an alteration was made, and then 
— for the xjrst time — the first Abbot of Crowland was 
made to have been a Monk of Evesham, — a Monk promoted 



ON THE HISTOEY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 219 

* 

for his merits to the government at Crowland, — this being 
the case of the abbot Longchamp himself. 

To help to fill up the tables of succession in the two 
abbeys of Crowland and Burgh a sufficiency of Abbots was 
selected from other Monasteries, and that without much 
regard to the times in which they lived. From Ely they 
took an Elsinus for Burgh and an Oshetulus (Leofwin) for 
Crowland, and for Crowland they invented an earlier Egelric 
an earlier Godric and a number of other Abbots who never 
had an existence. 

How long such alterations continued to be made in the 
history of Crowland does not appear but 1 suppose neither 
the following passage, nor the account — in its present form — 
of the destruction of Burgh and the surrounding villages in 
1013 was written till long after the time of Longchamp and 
Peter of Blois. 

« From this little fountain" — the Lectures of the Missionaries 
to Cottenham — " the stream has as we now see, become a broad 
river ; all England is fructified and made a part of God's 
Kingdom by the Teachers and Doctors which Cambridge sends 
out like another Paradise." 



220 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 



CHAPTER XL. 

WHAT THE NON-MILITARY NORMANS WERE ; AND SOME PAR- 
TICULARS OF THE EARLY LIFE AND THE LAST DAYS OF 
WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY. 

Of Odo, Terricus and William we find no earlier trace in 
our Histories, — no mention of them in connection with 
Ingulf us except that Odo was his Prior in 1091, or with 
Gislebertus or Joffredus except in the so-called Continuation 
by Peter of Blois. 

I think we have ascertained that they had all been taught 
what they knew in the college at Orleans, — had left it and 
had made their way to the Monastery at Bee with a design 
to solicit letters of introduction to Lanfranc or to Ernulfus 
and then to come and seek employment amongst us. 

It seems that during the times of Lanfranc and the tico 
next archbishops we had a constant influx of students from 
abroad, — persons who knew nothing of the manual arts, and 
— though some of them no doubt were scholars and good men, 
others were neither more nor less than fugitives and outlaws ; 

Sometimes these adventurers came alone, — sometimes two or 
three together, but generally without means of support. As 
soon as they were landed they travelled of necessity to the 
gates of our Monasteries, and they seem to have been less 
unwelcome at Canterbury than anywhere else. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 221 

It is certain that these people did not all wish to earn their 
bread by hard labour, and equally certain that they did not all 
wish to become Monks; they considered they were fit for 
something better, — few of them honestly affected a religious 
life ; for those who did as well as for those who did not 
though congenial pursuits were as attainable in Normandy as 
here they expected to do better here than at home ; at that 
time as well as at present many who have studied for the 
church or medicine or the law have found when they had 
done with their books that they were qualified for walks in 
life in which they were not wanted. 

When these wanderers sought our shores the Monasteries 
were their only inns ; — they commonly wore the black gown 
which was the dress of the Benedictines and professed to be 
ready to serve a noviciate and to become Monks ; indeed they 
often pretended to say that they had served a noviciate abroad. 

Odo Terricus and William were a sample of the normans 
of this class ; They desired to pass for Monks though they 
neither were Monks nor willing to be monks if they could get 
any secular employment. 



This Chapter was to have been given to Mahnesbury, — the 
William who has been mentioned as a Monk, — & follower of 
Gislebertus, — and a professor of Bhetoric. 

It appears by the notice prefixed to Mahnesbury s Books of 
the Kings translated by the Eeverend Mr. Sharpe, (London, 
1815) that the Translator — for one, quite misunderstood the 
person and character of his author. The first Editor of his 
histories, Sir Henry Savile, was delighted with his talents 
as a writer and seems to have thought he had no faults. 

Mahnesbury — who always professed to be the impartial and 
honest Historian which Sharpe and Savile believed he was, — 
sometimes in the course of his writings, speaks (incidentally 



222 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

only) of himself. He says he was by birth half french and half 
english (it seems his mother was english) : — If the course of 
his own life or his natural connections were of good repute 
it does not appear — but in this particular he might be modest. 

But though I do not find any mention of him in any 
cotemporary writer if we except our Continuator Gislebertus, 
it is not difficult, notwithstanding the silence of others and his 
own reserve, to collect something of his personal history, his 
career is not perfectly cloudless but it is not incomprehensible. 

This much respecting Malmesbury is certain — in what he 
says on any subject we may always look for falsehood — but 
in his various writings there is now and then a word respect- 
ing himself, and sometimes therefrom, and sometimes from 
his silence when it is unnatural, and sometimes after read- 
ing twice over passages which are obscure we may contrive 
to infer, and to know enough of this not very amiable man. 

It may truly be said that he did not intend we should 
know what kind of man he was, — he wrote almost nothing 
directly about himself. 

We see that when this person was employed to invent a 
history of Crowland before the time of King Edgar he was not 
eighteen, and it was a subject on which he could not have been 
expected to write sensibly : Ernulfus who must have been a 
party to that employment, would see it was a desperate case, 
and could not expect that a history would be written which 
would be of any use to Ingulfus. 

When Malruesbury was older, a little easy, 'and a little free, 
he could write History, and well, but during all his life lie was 
in want ; — he was often obliged to write romance ; and when 
he was wholly dependent on his imagination he could not but 
show it, — he wrote differently then, and not so well. 

Though this man lived to surprise his cotemporaries by the 
exhibition of talents which must be uncommon in any age, — 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 223 

notwithstanding those talents his patrons were cool; — indeed, 
he had none ; he was but a poor librarian to the last ; He did not 
in his old age try to move charity by allusions to his literary 
skill as he fairly mighty — he mentions his industry only : He 
found when it was too late that for the Church of Canterbury 
he had sacrificed that which is dear to all men — self-respect 
— and that the Church would do nothing for him; we 
may fairly conclude from his humble appeals in the later 
dedications of his books of Kings to the Lord Robert of 
Gloucester that when he left the world he had not one last 
friend to bid him god-speed. 

To speak from the inferences mentioned above I under- 
stand that Malmesbury was the son of a soldier who came 
from le Mans or from that neighbourhood, and that his father 
luxd kindred there. 

From what he mentions more than once (in his account of 
Malmesbury Abbey and elsewhere) what he says of his 
school cannot have been properly read. Malmesbury was 
not wholly but he was partly educated in the monastery at 
Malmesbury, and it was in consequence, I suppose, of his 
having been there as long as he was in his youth that he 
was afterwards the Librarian of that House. He was there 
in his Boyhood but he was removed several years before he 
attained to man's Estate. It is plain that the professor 
William of the Crowland History did indeed acquire the 
'rudiments of learning at Malmesbury, but it is plain also 
from what is said of him in that history that he was educated 
somewhere abroad ; and, connecting that account with certain 
passages in his Church History it cannot well be doubted that 
it was in the College at Orleans : — There was at that time no 
place in this kingdom where education in the kinds of 
learning in which he was proficient was to be had (no place 
at least, which was palatable to the Normans) ; 



224 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

It must be admitted that his latin style is different and 
better than he could have acquired here, and that here greek 
was then a language unknown. 

I think we shall not be far wrong if we suppose that 
Malmesburv's parents died when he was but a child ; and that 
in consequence he was sent to his father's Kinsmen. Or if it 
were not so, then that he was befriended by Walhelin the 
Bishop of Winchester, of which bishop he speaks in several of 
his works — particularly in his life of Wulstan ; it seems that 
whilst he was young he had had frequent and familiar inter- 
course with this norman Bishop. 

He says of Walhelin that he was a man who, in virtue 
followed Lanfranc, although a long way behind him ; and 
that he had heard him relate a particular story of bishop 
Wulstan more than once. Elsewhere he speaks of his florid 
complexion and very white hair. 

Walhelin died in the christmas Holidays in 1098 and 
Malmesbury ivhen he wrote Wulstan s life (more than forty years 
later) had an old mans recollection of what had been said, 
not to him perhaps, but in his hearing when he was a boy. 

We are competent to say (consistently with what seems to he 
certain in the course of Malmesburv's life) that he was born in 
1067. — We have seen that he left the University in 1082, 
that is to say when he was about fifteen. 

He came with two other young men, — they were all 
folloivers of the Doctor Gislebertus and (though they followed 
him — pei'haps from Bee, perhaps from St. JEvreux) I suppose 
they had attended his Lectures at Orleans. 

We have seen that Gislebertus was made an Abbot of West- 
minster in 1082, and as he was at one time a fellow-Monk 
with Lanfranc and owed this promotion no doubt to him, 
we have here (apparently) one instance of a feeling which 
we may respect even in Lanfranc ; — nor can it be said that 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAN1) ABBEY. 225 

Gislebertus was made an Abbot for no other reason than 
because he was an old friend, and without regard to his 
deserts, for it seems he was really a good man. 

It was Lanfranc's interest to encourage merit. He invited 
and sought by all means to encourage the influx of literate 
persons into this kingdom. Many of them were induced to 
become monks and were admitted into the Monastery at 
Christ-Church ; and others (such of them as were willing to go) 
were sent into other Monasteries ; it seems that Malmesbury 
was one of those who did not much object to the confinement 
of a Monastery and that when he came he was entertained 
at Canterbury as long as he chose to stay ; and that others 
whom it was found impossible to convert were also allowed to 
stay for a time until employment could be found for them 
elsewhere. Meantime they were all dressed in black and were 
expected to call themselves lay Monks. 

The five books de Pontificilus (the church history which 
Malmesbury wrote), his before- mentioned Gesta regum (books 
of the kings) and other works of his, and the dedications or 
prefaces thereto contain indications of his character and a 
few particulars of his Life some of which have been overlooked 
and a few (as I think) misunderstood. 

He tells us both in his Church History and in his Life of 
Aldhelmus (in words, or in effect) that he was at school in the 
Monastery at Malmesbury when he was a boy ; — (he says that 
something which happened frightened us boys). 

A student of mankind might see an ingredient of Malmes- 
bury 's nature in what he says of Malmesbury Abbey under 
the Allot Warin. 

Of the Abbot Warin he says things which seem very ill- 
tempered and were most likely malevolent and false — 
particulars which are likely to have been written under a 
recollection of punishment.— It seems that he stayed but a 

Q 



226 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

very short time at Canterbury in 1082 and went back to 
Malmesbury ; and there is reason to think he was soon after- 
wards expelled by Godefridus, the next Abbot after Warin. 
The following is a List of his Abbots of Malmesbury : — 

1. Toroldus, a Canon, as it seems, of Fecamp : We know (from 
this same writer Malmesbury) that the king to make room 
for Toroldus had deposed the english abbot Brithric ; — 

Toroldus was promoted to Burgh in 1069. 

2. The before-named Warin (de Lira) ; he died Abbot in 
1081. 

3. Godefridus Gemeticensis. — (He was a monk of Ely and 
the proctor, also, of that Abbey.) He was Abbot of Malmes- 
bury till his death in 1105. 



Of Toroldus as abbot of Malmesbury the historian Malmes- 
bury of his own knowledge could know nothing. 

I do not suppose that the soldiers who went with Toroldus 
when he took possession of Burgh were ever at Malmesbury, 
and Malmesbury says much less than he might of Toroldus 
as an Abbot of Burgh : — perhaps this opinion ought to be 
qualified — he may have written {from, hearsay as he was 
accustomed to write) a good deal more about Toroldus than 
now appears. He was obliged (as we shall show) to suppress 
or to appropriate to other Monasteries incidents which really 
belonged to the Abbots and the Abbey of Burgh ; — Burgh was 
a subject on which it was not lawful to enlarge. 

Of the Abbot Godefridus and the Abbey in his time he 



" In the time of the Abbot Godefridus there ivas industry 
in this House, — it flourished, and religion (pomp), increased 
also, considering the Abbot's limited means and considering 
that his time was a good deal occupied with other affairs. 

" Godefridus was frightfully austere towards offenders and 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 227 

easily made angry, but, after a soft answer he would be 
silent and think no more of the offence." 

From what Malmesbury says of this Abbey whilst he was 
there and the particulars given of the manners of the monks 
and scholars in Warins time we may understand that it was 
then a very discreditable place. 

There were good reasons for the severity of the Abbot 
Godefridus. There was no order kept until that Abbot 
came, nor, till he set an example, any decent respect for 
divine service— but Godefridus restored discipline ; — He was 
first in his place in the Church, and always a devout 
attendant. 

Malmesbury might indeed have learned these particulars of 
Godefridus from somebody else after he returned from France 
(for he was not at Malmesbury at the time of the Abbot's 
coming in 1081) but still he seems to speak from experience, 
and therefore, as it is hardly to be supposed that when he 
returned he was again a Scholar under Godefridus, we may 
suppose he went again in or soon after 1082 as a lay monk 
and a mendicant. 

We reckon that he left Malmesbury first, when he was 
about ten years old (in 1077) ; — he was absent five years, and 
followed Gislebertus into England when he was about fifteen. 
It was in June 1082 that the Professor of Sacred Theology 
(I suppose under a diploma from Orleans) came over with his 
three followers and was made Abbot of Westminster. 

If any faith is to be placed in indications Malmesbury when 
he wrote his Church History knew the english tongue so 
imperfectly that he was obliged to get Edmer or some other 
Canterbury man to write down the english words which occur 
therein. 



228 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 



CHAPTEE XLI. 

THE TONGUE SPOKEN IN NORMANDY IN 1066. 

In the course of my present occupation I have picked up a 
notion new to me if not to others ; I was in no haste to 
entertain it but it was suggested more than once by what I 
read — I began at last to believe in and to like it, and I now 
submit it to the gentlemen, few in number, called Philologists ; 
it may not be new to them or they may think it a fancy 
only and reject it ; — I leave it with them. 

I think the Normans who came to see us in 1066 were 
for the most part much like ourselves and spoke a dialect 
which differed as little from our own as the english of Londoners 
differs from the tongue of the Scots. 

There is no question as to the tongue of the Normans of 
whom we know the most ; Their historians usually spoke no 
doubt the tongue in which a few of them wrote and which we 
call norman-french ; — it is smooth and easy and seems to have 
had even then the polish of the modern french, — but they 
preferred to write in latin. 

Now though we know this, we do not know nor must we 



ON THE HISTORY OF CROWLAND ABBEY. 229 

therefore conclude that the normans of Duke William's time, 
the rank and file which he brought with him, spoke any kind 
of french. 

May we not believe that in the Normandy of that day there 
were two kinds of men, the one an educated class well skilled 
in the language of the south of France — -the Languedoc — 
for a knowledge of which language as well as for a knowledge 
of latin they commonly went to Orleans ? 

This class (but a few in number) were most of them clerks 
and idle students, — thriftless but ambitious. They were princi- 
pally Writers, and writers only ; they had personally nothing 
to do with the exploits of the normans. 

The other class was the bulk of the people, — not so well 
instructed but all of the same race, the race of the norm an 
Rollo. 

I believe it was in this, the second class that the strong 
men were found who were too many for the saxon Harold ; too 
many at thai time, when Harold's horsemen and bowmen had 
many masters and no master. 

It is said that whilst they were landing Harold was told 
by one of his scouts that the strangers were all priests. — 
Harold who knew better than that, said No ; — they have no 
beards but they are not priests, — they are good stout fellows 
I can tell you, and they know how to handle their weapons. 

We shall show that these men had certain Italians 
amongst them who were well paid, and undoubtedly qualified 
for the work they had to do. These italians were soldiers, — 
ready to lead and to fight in any land, and in any cause ; 
(They were called Conductors — Condottieri.) 

The Normans of this second class found wives amongst us 
without any difficulty. I had always supposed they spoke 
french, bat I believe now that I was quite mistaken. 

When Ingulfus left London in 1051 as one of the Duke's 



230 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, AND 

servants lie would desire to pass for a Norman, (hardly for an 
alien, for he says he ruled in the family); but when he came 
bach he came, according to the Crowland history, to be the 
Abbot of Crowland and would profess to be english. I suppose 
he might seem to be norman to one man, and to another 
english — or to be on different occasions both norman and 
english, and that from his tongue, his looks, his dress and 
demeanour it was not easy to say which he was. 

In 1075 Lanfranc had special designs. He wished to see 
all our Abbots dispossessed and none but norman Abbots; 
The Abbey of Crowland was vacant, — Lanfranc sent to the 
Abbot of Fontanelle, — and the Abbot of Fontanelle sent over 
his Prior Ingulfus. 

At this particular time Ingulfus had peculiar merits. He 
tells us that he was born in England (which was true) ; and 
of english parents, — this was not true but it argues that he 
had at least ambiguous looks,, and that he spoke our dialect 
without a foreign accent. 

Such qualities were at that time rare, and Ingulfus was 
made the Abbot of Crowland, — If he were not acceptable at 
Crowland he had no natural defect and ought not to be 
hated, which another Abbot not so well qualified might be ; 
Ingulfus was expected to be useful to the new dynasty as 
well as grateful to Lanfranc which some only of the norman 
Abbots were. 

The first William's constant argument was, and it seems to 
have convinced Ingulfus, that this kingdom was his as the 
gift of a Cousin who died without children of his own. 
Duke William was certainly akin to the Confessor but what 
he meant was that in such a case he was the natural father 
and king of the english people. 

Ingulfus was determined to be useful to the King and to 
Lanfranc for they were his only friends. 



ON THE HISTORY OF CBOWLAND ABBEY. 231 

I am now proposing to show, and I think Elfrics and 
Wulstans chronicles alone are sufficient to prove it, that the 
tongue of the norman people was not french in 1066 but 
another branch of our own. 

Ethelred's Queen was " Emma " (gehite), — but her right 
name was Elfgive, and she was called Emma by norman 
scholars and gentry only, the men who were then gradually 
subverting the dialect of their own people. 

The same Records (the chronicles) make repeated mention 
of the Chaplain also whom the Queen brought with her, 
— the chaplain who was the Abbot of Crowland and Bishop of 
Durham before the Historian Egelric was abbot, — his name 
was Elfwin, a name which has hitherto been taken for an 
english name ; and Ernulfus and Ingulf us are names of the 
same norman family. 

Without arguing from the reputed success of the english 
apostle Benedict, the missionary of Bede's time, who won 
over the Idolaters in large districts in Germany in which 
varieties of the algemeine (the common) tongue only were then 
spoken, we may observe that both Ingulf us and Malmesbury — 
in speaking of languages — couple french and norman together 
in a way which shows that the two were distinct in 1066, 
though we know not how far the transition of that of the 
normans towards french was then advanced. 

The tongue of the normans of 1066 must have been much 
like ours, — essentially the same, — We have the more reason 
to think so because our tongue was then still more like than 
it is now to the tongue of the people of Belgium and 
Flanders, another kindred race, and who to the present day 
profess to understand us. 

It is not likely that Hereward knew more languages than 
one — we find he was married when Duke William came to 
take possession here and was settled at Bruges. 



232 A LIGHT ON THE HISTORIANS, &c. 

♦ 
After the deaths of Canutus and Prince Alfred the Queen 

betook herself to Bruges, — Elfric was twice at Bruges, — he 

wrote and seems to have been at home there — and in his 

time Godwins Sons also and others,, King Edward's subjects 

of the mixed races, english, saxon and danes, frequented 

Earl Baldwin's Court. 

King Ethelred and his Queen were inordinately partial to 

the normans and outrageously preferred them to high offices 

in the church and in the state, — the consequence was that 

the normans here and in Normandy also were disliked; 

There was bad blood between them and ourselves for some 

years before the death of Prince Alfred in 1036, an event 

which made the breach incurable ; and after that time the 

friendly regards of the people of this kingdom were wholly 

transferred to the Belgians; — The normans and we were 

cousins once, but not after 1066. 



END OF VOLUME I. 



LONDON : PRINTED BY W. CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFOBD STREET 
AND CHARING CROSS* 



M*S 



M 







LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 






I 



■ 




I ^H f '*'.' fj 




021 396 218 8 



